The Slow Surge
Windows 7 is now “surging forward,” Ars Technica wrote. After just 9 months, it has overtaken Vista, which has been on the market for three and a half years. Sounds impressive, no?
Well, not so much. Windows 7 has so far claimed about 16% of the Windows crowd. And we should remember that Vista started gaining market share well before its official release–at it’s release, it already had about a 4% chunk of the Windows market, meaning that it’s growth is just about 1.3% per month. Better than Vista’s anemic 1% growth, but not by much. And though it has outgrown Vista’s 3.5-year number in 9 months, it did so by decreasing Vista’s share, eating away at Vista as it grew–it did not get there by only outpacing Vista, which is what many might assume from the “overtaking Vista” headlines.
Consider this: Mac OS X v. 10.6, Snow Leopard, got more than 55% of Mac users to switch in the same time period–almost three times the rate. Sure, Snow Leopard was cheap, but this pace of adoption is typical of Mac OS systems.
Another point to consider: where did Win 7’s share come from? Well, it turns out that about 2/3rds comes from XP’s share, and the other 1/3rd is from Vista. Considering that this started with XP having about 78% and Vista about 21% of all Windows users, that means Win 7 is drawing significantly more from the Vista crowd by proportion–Seven stole away about 14% of the XP crowd, but about 24% of the Vista crowd. Not to mention that most of the XP share taken by Seven is simply people buying new computers with Windows 7 pre-installed.
Not to mention that the trend is going to have to change soon: at this rate, it will take Seven a whole 20 months just to equal XP’s share. When official support for XP is finally removed, the trend will likely shift faster, but not by much, as people simply keep using older systems, or continue to re-install XP on new machines.
All this begs the question: why is Windows OS adoption so glacially slow? Mac OS adoption is lightning fast by comparison, even when released at full price. And considering the disaster Vista was, why didn’t most Vista users quickly upgrade to Seven?
There are several reasons. One is that most XP users continue to use machines that simply cannot support Windows 7. XP users who could upgrade may be staying away because of the bad reputation Vista imparted, making XP users wary. Then there’s the comfort factor, with XP working quite nicely enough, many wouldn’t want to change–the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” contingent.
None of these, however, explain why, after a year or so of being available, three-quarters of Vista users have not made the upgrade.
One reason strikes me as perhaps as a likely explanation: upgrading Windows is not the easy task it is on OS X, and the main reason for that is hardware drivers. Even with Win 7’s better driver support, I have talked to people who tried to upgrade and found that stuff on their computer wouldn’t work right, if at all. A case in point: when we made the DIY computer at my school, we bought a Sony Vaio monitor. The monitor has a built-in web cam. It doesn’t work. Why? Because Sony only released drivers with the OS sold with the Sony. The web is filled with people trying to find drivers for Windows machines.
Now, Windows 7 has much better driver support generally, and so it may not be such a big pain–but as I understand it, there are no guarantees for your machine–there is the potential for trouble, which could by itself keep people from upgrading. Some people may be holding back as part of the Vista backlash, unwilling to trust Seven as much as they should. But others may simply be aware that when they upgrade, they might have to spend hours tracking down drivers and dealing with other issues associated with the new OS. At some point, it becomes a matter of not being worth the hassle.
When you get a Windows device, the OS is not built specifically for your machine, and the companies that made the parts for your computer don’t always do a very good job of providing the latest drivers to support everything. To me, this explain a lot when I see the adoption numbers for Windows.
Vista drivers will usually work fine on Win7. So driver availability was a huge problem for XP to Vista, but wouldn’t be a problem for people moving from Vista to Win7. The biggest problems, some of which you’ve identified, are:
– Most PC users never upgrade their OS. It’s expensive, has driver issues and may require more powerful HW anyway. So most people use the OS that came on their PC for the life of the HW. This is true even if the OS is lousy (i.e. Vista).
– If you *do* want to upgrade your OS, you simply buy a new PC.
– You will very rarely have issues finding Windows drivers for devices. Vista/Win7 drivers may not be available for some older HW. But nearly every device has an XP driver, as 2/3rds of PCs still use it. Of course, every device on a new PC has a proper driver pre-installed.
Frankly, most PC users are underwhelmed by MacOS upgrades. The interface hasn’t changed very much (unlike any of the Windows upgrades), so it’s mostly a few minor feature adds and bug fixes. To Windows users, this looks more like a service pack than a full upgrade. Considering that, the cost Apple charges seems pricey, rather than reasonable.
You should realize that Microsoft’s main customers for its OS releases are PC OEMs. They sell it to the public as an afterthought, but there’s almost never a reason to buy a boxed version of Windows. Microsoft does a fair job of supporting every possible bit of HW in the universe, but OEMs do a superb job of bundling and supporting the customized release of Windows that they put on their own systems (as you would expect). The OS *is* specifically built for the machine–by the OEM. So criticizing Microsoft for this is pointless. Of course, Apple’s software supports their own HW also. It would be pretty pathetic if it didn’t.
Well, the “usually” there is a problem in itself, but the big problem here is the OEM. You mention yourself later on that they are custom-built by the hardware manufacturer to match the devices in the machine–the problem being that an OS upgrade does not contain the custom drivers, nor are the always transferable. Not to mention that most people who are not knowledgable about computers tend to lose or discard the discs that came with the machine, leaving them without access to these drivers, and the manufacturers often don’t make some drivers available. Every computer should have it’s OS re-installed every year or two, but many people I’ve wanted to help out in this way don’t have their OEMs any more, making it more of an iffy proposition even if they buy a new copy of the OS.
Take that webcam driver for the Sony Vaio monitor we bought for the computer we were building; Sony doesn’t make a driver available for it on the web, and nobody I found was able to leech it off an OEM, so people were left to scramble for drivers for it. I found some who had a version of a driver intended for a general camera line built by the company that made the camera, but it only worked for Vista, not XP or Seven.
I have also had students who had Vista computers, bought Windows 7, and tried to upgrade, but when drivers didn’t work and the computer manufacturer said they didn’t have the drivers available for separate download, they had to revert back to the Vista OEM, which–luckily–they had kept. When students today ask me about upgrading Windows, I have to warn them to contact the manufacturer and ask if the machine will work under Seven and/or if drivers are available for download–and as we all know, contacting tech support and relying on their word, for most companies, is a hassle all in itself.
Very true. For some, that’s fine–software made ten years ago wasn’t bad, it’s just out of date now, and works well enough for a lot of people. But often it’s just because people don’t want to bother, or don’t even know they can do it–kind of like why so many people use IE (especially IE6).
And this is a good thing? What about someone who bought a Vista PC 18 months ago, dearly regrets it, and wants to upgrade to 7 but hears that there are driver issues? They’re supposed to toss out their 18-month-old computer? Gack.
I think this may be a big part of why some manufacturers don’t bend over backwards in making cross-OS drivers available outside the OEMs–I would not be surprised if they wanted users to be frustrated enough by an OS upgrade that they would just buy a new machine.
Alas, not in my experience. Maybe I just hear about it more because I deal with so many people regarding computers, but I have heard a great number of sad stories regarding driver unavailability with OS upgrades.
The definition of “older” may be vital here–2-3 years older, or 7-10 years older? My suspicion is that it’s 2-3 years, or even less, which I’ll get to in the next graf. As for XP drivers, even that’s not the case–as we recently discovered with the Sony webcam. As for the OEM, of course it has the drivers–if it didn’t, it would be rather pointless to have the hardware at all.
The point is, many drivers on OEMs are not available outside the OEMs, and OEMs are made for the OS the hardware is built for. Hardware makers don’t care so much about OS upgrades–they would be happier if you just bought new hardware. So they will come out with new models which will have drivers for the latest OS, but won’t usually bother to upgrade drivers for last year’s models. Which leaves a lot of people in the dust, and makes it harder to upgrade to a new OS.
Naturally, you’ll get argument from me on this. Most PC users are underwhelmed by Mac OS upgrades either by automatic dislike or dismissal for Mac stuff, or because they aren’t aware of the features and what they do–easy for someone not familiar with the system. Each OS upgrade, however, has just as long and significant a feature list as full Windows upgrades, in addition to costing less and having full functionality (no home/business/pro/ultimate grades). Comparing the new feature list in, say, Tiger or Leopard to, say, XP Service Pack 2 is not a debate you’d want to get into.
Ironically, what you claim at the end of that graf is actually the opposite: Windows 7 is often referred to as “Vista Service Pack 3,” as it has far less new stuff over Vista than Vista had over XP (an unusually long list considering the time gap), not to mention that a lot of the changes were under the hood or were side features–and yet Microsoft charges full price for the upgrade, while Apple, in releasing Snow Leopard, recognized the under-the-hood nature and slashed the price by 80% to reflect that.
Strange that you promote this almost like it was a good thing–that you have to buy a new computer in order to upgrade the OS. I’d rather have upgrades as soon as they come out on the machine I already own–but that’s just me, I guess.
And that’s Apple’s strength: because the hardware maker also is the OS maker, you never lack drivers for built-in equipment–making upgrading the OS simpler and cleaner.
And this is where it comes to the “pricier” claims. The “Apple Premium” or “Apple Tax” is an illusion–yes, you often pay more up front, but with Windows you pay the same amount, or more, at the back end by not having the conveniences and quality that Apple builds in up-front. A really smart Windows user can often sidestep many of these costs–know to get the freeware anti-virus, know exactly where to get drivers or how to avoid equipment that doesn’t have driver issues, repair or maintenance their own machines instead of using repair shops and customer support, tweak the hardware and the software, etc. If you’re that kind of person, then absolutely, you can get far more value out of a Windows box than a Mac. But most people don’t know how to do this, so they wind up paying the hidden Windows taxes, a drop at a time, in addition to being more frustrated and less comfortable, until they wind up spending as much as or more than they would for a Mac. In a way, you might say that Apple is just more honest: it shows you more of the true cost at the initial purchase, instead of hiding it in after-service.
My mom taught me this lesson–get a good quality pair of shoes at the best price you can find instead of buying a cheap pair, because in the end, you’ll be more comfortable all the time, and the cheap shoes will wear out so fast and you’ll have to replace them so often that it’ll cost about the same anyway.
most PC users are underwhelmed by MacOS upgrades.
Again Geoff is speaking his personal opinion and applying it as a “most XYZ believe . . .” again. Quite a repetitive schtick.
The interface hasn’t changed very much (unlike any of the Windows upgrades), so it’s mostly a few minor feature adds and bug fixes.
Unlike MS with Win2K, Apple set a pretty ambitious spec for the UI with 10.0, and it took hardware and OS underpinning several years to fully realize it.
And OS X has had a lot more than “a few minor feature adds” over the past 10 years I’ve been using it. More like a steady release of major new features like Quartz Extreme (10.2), Expose (10.3), Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator, Boot Camp, Core Animation, FSEvents (all 10.4), Front Row and Time Machine (10.5),
To Windows users, this looks more like a service pack than a full upgrade. Considering that, the cost Apple charges seems pricey, rather than reasonable.
10.1 was free, 10.2 came out in 2002 when Apple actually needed the revenue, 10.4 & 10.5 were awesome updates that really pushed the Mac ahead of Windows.
10.3 was the only really meh-inducing point version that was skippable.
Now that Apple has $40B in the bank or whatever it continues this $20 OS upgrade availability as it helps its developers out to get everyone on the latest & greatest.
but there’s almost never a reason to buy a boxed version of Windows. …
I’ve been using Windows machines since 1995 but have yet to buy a Windows machine from a Microsoft licensee. DIY for me all the way. That’s Window’s main relative strength over Mac OS, being able to build the best desktop that most closely matches your needs. I’ve got a binder with a Win2k Pro license, 5 XP licenses, 1 Vista license, and 1 Win7 license now.
As for Luis’ point about driver availability, I think Windows is much better about this than what we Mac users have to face. Sony is the oddball here since they are the most Mac-like OEM and prefer doing some things their way.
As long as you stay in the Wintel mainstream, you’ll be OK with Windows and new hardware.
Ironically, I actually agree with you to some extent. If you’re recommending a computer for someone who is basically clueless, a Mac has always been regarded as a safe choice. People who like to play with their computers (i.e. hobbyists) are less likely to prefer Macs, as they prefer to have a wider range of OS and HW available to them, despite the potential for complications. I would also say that the “Apple tax” is pretty minimal now for new HW. If you like the iMac form factor and don’t mind the glossy screen, than the price is fairly close to comparable Dells and HP models.
I should also say that the quality of the PC experience varies a lot based on which PC vendor you choose. I’ve had good luck with Lenovo/IBM, Toshiba and Fujitsu. Mixed luck with HP and Dell (although their “Enterprise” lines and server lines are better). And I would never recommend Sony to anyone. Sony manages to combines Apple’s flair for non-functional HW and control-freakery with Microsoft’s talent for disastrous SW reliability. And their after-market and tech support is awful.
Vista came out in 2006. So anything made in the last 5 years probably has some Vista/Win7 support. I wouldn’t try running either OS on a PC more than a couple of years old, though. For any Vista PC, personally I’d either go to Win7 or XP depending on the level of HW. But I wouldn’t stay on Vista. Anything 2007 or older, XP is probably more suitable for the level of performance. And a 5-year-old PC is hopelessly out of date, just as a 5-year old Mac would be.
Frankly, Microsoft made a serious error with XP, Vista and Win7. The level of compatibility between the 64bit and 32bit versions is basically zero. So anyone going to 64bit will need all new versions of Office and their other apps. Compatibility was always the main reason people used Windows, so throwing that away was a big mistake. But 32bits is out of steam now. More than 4Gb of RAM is common, as are 64bit CPUs. 64bit Windows is getting more popular anyway, but I think it will be a difficult transition. I expect Web Apps, Chrome, Android and Linux to all take market share away from Windows during this period.
Personally, if I owned a Mac for some reason, the first thing I’d do would be to buy and plug in a half-way decent mouse (i.e. not from Apple). The second would be to install Linux on it, so I could have a version of Unix that didn’t want to make me rip my hair out. But I’m not an average user.
So, you’re not trying to get a rise out of me at all, are you? 😀
But 32bits is out of steam now. More than 4Gb of RAM is common, as are 64bit CPUs. 64bit Windows is getting more popular anyway
It didn’t have to be this way. 64-bit CPUs are of course perfectly backwards compatible with 32-bit code.
4GB+ of RAM may be common, but that didn’t require moving to full 64-bit OS. Part of Microsoft’s problem was their allocation of 4GB space for IO mapping. Retarded.
Plus with modern hw they could have expanded kernel memory map past 4GB while enforcing a 4GB per-process limit.
OS X of course fully supports PAE for Core2Duo and better so can address 32GB as of 10.5 and 64GB as of 10.6.
but I think it will be a difficult transition. I expect Web Apps, Chrome, Android and Linux to all take market share away from Windows during this period.
Linux is crap for the general public. I wouldn’t recommend it for my worst enemy. Well, maybe I would, but still.
if I owned a Mac for some reason, the first thing I’d do would be to buy and plug in a half-way decent mouse (i.e. not from Apple)
LOL, I’ve been using the Intellimouse on Macs for more than 10 years now (along with Microsoft’s Natural keyboard — I bought a case of 3 back in 2000 when they were phasing out the old key actions). I tried Apple’s “Magic Mouse” bluetooth mouse, it’s OK but its low profile isn’t good for my usage pattern (the MS mouse is easier to grab without looking). I haven’t really given the Apple mouse enough usage time, maybe I will. . . the Magic mouse does have multiple mouse buttons, you know, though the MS mouse’s click action is about 2X as “clean” as the Apple mouse (clicking moves the entire top of the Apple mouse for some strange reason) . . .
The second would be to install Linux on it, so I could have a version of Unix that didn’t want to make me rip my hair out. But I’m not an average user.
I’ve got no complaints with the BSD userland. Not that I go there much any more, but OS X + its embedded BSD is a better, more coherent mix than Windows + Linux or whatever you want to do on Wintel.
Like I said, Linux is crap as far as I’m concerned. The only thing good tech-wise that has come from Linuxland has been the LAMP stack, and that is starting to grow obsolescent now.