Mac OS X vs Windows - Who is winning? (desktop, operating system, Linux)

[Bull Winkus]

Think long term. Which OS survives the test of time?

And, what are your reasons for your opinions?

[EscapeCalifornia]

Windows, because its a huge ecosystem that's bigger than Microsoft. Apple, on the other hand, is toast the minute Steve Jobs kicks the bucket because he's a micromanaging dictator that won't let anything happen without his personal approval and direction.

[mensaguy]

Mac is better; always has been; probably always will be. Doesn't matter. The installed base of computers running Windows makes the Mac/Linux/anything else argument pointless.

(BTW: The favorite operating system I every used was AmigaDOS.)

[djmilf]

Some version of Windows -- it's has the largest amount of third party software packages available.

Apple doesn't even come close in the number of software packages. That's by design, Apple doesn't want 'crap' software on their machines.

When it comes to the difference between Microsoft and Apple a whole lot of 'costs less / good enough to get the job done' overwhelms a little 'costs more / better than anything else'.

[Bull Winkus]

I picked Macintosh, not surprisingly.

I'm thinking long term here, and I mean longer term than probably even me. As we all know, nothing lasts forever. Not even Apple or Microsoft. Sooner or later both companies will meet their demise, but I expect that Apple will outlive Microsoft and most of the credit will go to the legacy of the OS. Microsoft is an old brittle company that is already failing. It just doesn't look like it because of their strong cash flow and immense cash hoard.

"But Bull," you say "that sounds like they are winning to me."

It does, but that isn't the way the corporate world works. Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) is not a growth company and hasn't been for some time. The last little spurt of growth came out of their X-Box project, and it cost big time. Now that it's out there, it's slow to no growth for the X-Box. Within the past few years, it has been one expensive failure after another. WGA, WMA and PlaysForSure, Zune, WinCE and Windows Mobile, the Tablet PC and the biggest of them all, Windows Vista.

They couldn't even close on the highly publicized Yahoo! acquisition.

The truth be told, Microsoft's management team, even with Bill Gates at the helm, has yet to hit one out of the park with the exception of their mouse and keyboard division. Yes, the X-Box was a success, but in a very expensive launch with little profit rewards to follow. It is not a hit out of the park for management to showcase to shareholders. It is more of a lasting diversification within the company, that makes it less vulnerable to potential loss of revenue from the software division.

This company exists for one reason, ... IBM gave away the keys to all the profits for every PC they sold. Bill Gates was the beneficiary because he was in the right place at the right time. He had enough business sense to recognize and secure his fortune. Since then, he's been riding the coat tails of innovation from other companies.

Brittle. Crumbling. Gates is gone now. Left at the helm is "I love this company" Steve Balmer.

Microsoft's Balmer Monkey Dance - Celebrities Gallery
Ballmer Throws A Chair At "F*ing Google" - John Battelle's Searchblog

Apple, on the other hand, is taking market share. Last quarter saw a 40% increase in Macintosh sales with gains in the US leading the way. It has been awhile since Apple has had a new product flop. Not since the return of Steve Jobs has this happened. The iMac, iBooks, MacBook Pros, iPods, MacBook Air and yes the iPhone, were all out of the park hits. The company has made multiple strategic acquisitions that leveraged their strength in software for photo, music and movie management and editing. They are on a roll even with a bad economy. They're still growing with a total shareholder's equity of $19.6 Billion.

Y/Y Growth - Product Category
41% - Macintosh unit sales
12% - iPod unit sales
265% - iPhone unit sales

It's just a matter of time. If Microsoft doesn't compete to create new markets and products and earn a return on shareholder's investment the investors will take their money elsewhere. It's already happening. MSFT is trading at around $25 a share and in the past year has only been up to $37 and change.

As the stock slips, the company increases its dividends trying to keep investors. Paying more dividends taxes the balance sheet. Without new revenue streams to make up the difference, the company can slip into becoming simply a cash cow for investors, or can be raided as stronger companies see opportunities. And, you can bet that if Vista stagnates with another disappointment, corporate IT departments will go shopping for another OS to hang their hat on.

Apple is performing. Microsoft is not. Apple will outlast Microsoft. It really is that simple.

[Brill]

Apple will gain share in the home market, but I doubt they will never control the business market like Microsoft does. What company is going to throw out every piece of hardware they have and buy overpriced mac hardware? Then they will have to run an OS that is not compatiable with most of the software they use. Small business is possible, but not large companies. The cost would be astronomical.

I think the future of OS will be one more of an equilibrium. Things will balance out. OSX, Windows, Linux will all have a decent chunk of the market. I don't think we'll ever see another giant dominating the computer market like Microsoft did.

[Bull Winkus]

Brill, your point of view is just as valid as mine, at least until the future happens. I just wanted to point out a little fallacy in your description of the business market for computers.

In large corporations many if not most of the desktop systems are leased. Periodically those leases run out and the company goes through an upgrade cycle, replacing desktops across the realm. By and large, these 'computers' are used as little more than smart terminals to the wide area network for distribution of email notifications, file sharing and some word processing and spreadsheets. While there are specific instances of software dependency, the majority of these installations are running generic Word, Excel, Outlook Express and other 'off the shelf' software.

The cost resistance to Apple's penetrating this market, lies not in the volume of hardware to be replaced, but in Apple's lack of effort in being competitive at the price points IT departments are strapped with. If Apple should go after this market, they wont do it with their current line of desktop bling. They will emulate the marketing model typically used in high volume, competitively priced products. But, they'll do it with a computer that does the job better, yet costs less to manufacture than that of the competition, because they will retain a healthy margin.

And, they wont even get started until they are certain of the outcome.

[EscapeCalifornia]

I can't imagine an IT department that wants to get in bed with one company and completely depend on them for hardware and operating systems. Apple's product line is so incredibly narrow compared to the huge breadth of PCs on the market. And Apple has a nasty habit of burning the backwards compatibility bridge every few years and telling users "too bad".

[Bull Winkus]

Better start imagining it then. A large number of IT departments of large corporations have done just that. Ask Dell. You think it makes some kind of difference that Dell doesn't make the OS that runs the computer? I can't imagine how.

As for 'burning the backwards compatibility bridge every few years and telling users "too bad"' you'll have to be more specific. As far as I can tell, they've done a terrific job of bridging the changes in hardware with some great software engineering. I can run software made for my old G5 on my newer Intel and I can't tell the difference.

[Bo]

Neither, the OS and the applications are moving to the cloud. Which OS will be the last one standing matters about as much as which city was the last to embrace electric street lighting.