Pirillo says Vista will help Apple

I've already decided and I'm switching. I've had it with the registry, having to re-install every year, etc.
- Mac OS is bascially Unix, so it has a solid foundation.
- Everything I do on a computer these days can be done on a Mac.
- I can run Windows on a Mac as well.
- I like good design and you can't beat Apple for design.
- It just works. No hassles with hardware. App Hung? Close it. It doesn't bring down the whole OS.

I honestly can't think of a reason why I shouldn't switch.

To be frank, I think you're *hoping* Microsoft is in trouble; I've noticed a distinct bias towards anything Microsoft in many of your posts, and I've always wanted to comment on it. Such bias is fine in sites like WiiFanBoy.com, but on Download Squad, I think it's a bit out of place.

The article bases his assumptions on two facts: that everyone will up and jump and pay for a Vista license, when most people will get their hands on a license that comes with their computer, (ignoring the fact that most people won't be springing for 'Ultimate') and the fact that everything Microsoft is doing is 'too little, too late'. Frankly, I can't even comprehend the logic that an updated release of IE7 will drive more people to Firefox...wouldn't NOT releasing an update drive people to switch? The Windows Live brand of it's online products is quite appealing, smooth and shows a departure from MS's ways of bloating their online apps (ie, hotmail, msn.com). People who are still using their hotmail accounts (and there's a heck of a lot out there) are going to be quite impressed when they're finally switched to the new version.

As for Vista, I like it. The only annoyance I see is in the UAC, and if they don't minimize the hassle in the final release, I can simply turn it off since I'm the only one who uses my machine. I don't think Microsoft should release a new OS every 12-18 months that would be the equivalent of a service pack, as Apple does, charge full price for the upgrade, and screw over their consumers who don't. For example: iTunes 7 works on Windows 2000, while for OS X you need to have OS X 10.3, and you can bet that for the next version of iTunes that requirement will be bumped to 10.4.

I don't think Microsoft is in trouble. Yes, the ability to run Windows on Apple hardware is a boost to them (and inspired me to get rid of my old pc laptop and get a MacBook), but if people are going to be dual booting, they'll still be paying for Windows (technically...). Now if only someone gets to releasing a taskbar-like app for OS X, I'd finally be able to use that OS properly...

I made the switch this summer. I also switched my parents as well. After spending 6 hours re-installing Windows only to have Microsoft tell me that the Re-install disk that came with their Dell wasn't genuine, I told them I had had it and it's time for them to consider switching to the Mac.

A couple of weeks prior, I had showed them OS X on my MacBook. Showed them that the programs that they use in Windows were pretty much there in OS X. So when I told them that they needed to switch, they agreed.

They have been using a Mac Mini now for about 3 months and can't get enough of it. I have been using OS X and Macs now for about 5 months. I bought a Mac Pro the day they announced the box. I have been in heaven.

No virus issues, no spyware/malware issues, OS updates with a piece of software instead of a browser.

When Leopard comes out, I'll be spending $200 to upgrade my 2 machines and my parents machine. Not the nearly $500 or more for Vista that wouldn't even run Aero on my older PC and my parents old PC.

I will keep XP on my 3.2GHz P4 and I'm planning on installing Ubuntu on my older 2.0Ghz P4. I'm keeping XP for as long as I can. Knowing MS, they will force users to Vista at some point by only allowing DirectX 10 on Vista or something like that. When that happens I'll have to evaluate if I really want to put that P.O.S. on my PC or just do without the game.

Oh, and the reason I switched? Mostly, Vista. After looking at Beta 2 and RC1, I realized that MS was just doing another WinME. The security model isn't really all that much better, it simply beats you do death with "Are you sure?" dialogs that folks will start ignoring 2 days after they switch to Vista. The eye candy isn't even available unless you are a gamer and have a system that can run some of the more modern games.

Pirillo did made a point, vista will drive people away from using pc, because vista simply sucks. Majority of pc user will stick with XP, primarily because people are set in certain ways and do not want to change, this I believe. but the high end users will want to explore Mac alot more, cause of this vista boost. so to speak, OS market will shrink a little for MS, up a knoch for Apple, but overall, evil empire still sits safely on that 90% market share, as usual.

Actually on some x86 PCs you can install MacOS. I saw working MacOS on PC. Of course not all hardware work with Mac, but you can do it! So "Windows-only PC" is wrong term

I'm pretty sure that the share will not change where it's important - the enterprise.

Apple have been chipping away at the home market for years & have probably done alright at it but as long as Microsoft are the market leaders in office & enterprise based operating systems then they will have the most seats.

I tried a mac recently & apart from it looking nice it really didn't do anything more than my PC is able to do & when I upgrade I'll be sticking with whatever version of windows the company I work for uses & whatever is the most cost effective way of doing the most I need to do & that has not changed.

I'm not sure I'll switch to Vista yet, I've got RC2 on my Media Center PC that I'm checking out & it looks fantastic for that kind of thing but I don't think I'll be switching from MCE2005 just yet
Oh, and Linux will NEVER break the mainstream.

Sites such as this are full of people saying how they'll boycott Microsoft or switch to Unix, but I'll bet that in a year, as always happens the same people will be saying the same things whilst sitting at their PCs

Geeks may not mind switching between OSes to use their favorite apps but general users will never buy into that aand certainly not the enterprise user. Microsoft's primary revenue stream is the enterprise market where MacOS is in effect non-existent.

Khuffie is right, and I've noticed it to. Ryan, your obvious bias against Microsoft is amazing, and the fact that you're polluting Download Squad with this drivel, in some cases, something that has nothing to do with new downloads or news is ridiculous.

If you're going to jump on the MS-bashing bandwagon and into the Apple-gushing crowd, you might as well stop while we're ahead.

I didn't subscribe to this feed to read how evil Microsoft is and how you really don't like them. It'll be a shame if your drivel causes me to unsubscribe from it, or find some way to filter out every post by the great Ryan Block.

Most of us have more productive things to read.

Er, Ryan Carter. Like I said, more productive things to read, and I was reading from a Ryan Block when I meant to type your name. Either way, you get the point.

I personally think it's a bit unfair to say that Macs can dual boot Windows, and PCs can't dual boot OSX; they could if Apple sold it separately from their hardware. I know plenty of people who would gladly buy Tiger or Leopard if it became available (myself included).

You know, my whole life everyone that is a fanboy of Apple or Linux has dogged Microsoft. The problem is, that the programmers don't support the OS's of the other brands. If there is a prog. for Apple that everyone loves, I can find one for free for XP. I don't think that just because Apple is more expensive means a thing. I'm a gamer and spent 5k on my comp. , but I can't even play most games on a Mac. When this little issue is fixed, Apple will see their market share go up 90%. They switched to Intel and that was the first step. Now the enthusiasts don't have to buy an Apple, they can build one. All they have to do is keep up the direction their heading and they will shut down Microsoft soon enough!

While I won't accuse you of being too anti-Microsoft, your last comment is wrong. Both Khuffie and Fullman said your posts had an anti-Microsoft slant. Given how you presented Khuffie's awkwardly-worded statement, you're obviously either purposely misrepresenting Khuffie's position, or you simply didn't read his comment before you fired off a reply. Either choice indicates a lack of responsibility or integrity on you're part.

As for Vista vs. Mac: OSX doesn't really offer enough to tempt ordinary consumers away from Windows. Though I hate Microsoft for forcing Windows Genuine Advantage down our throats, most people, frankly, won't give a damn, unless the apocalyptic vision of millions of locked computers really takes place. In which case Microsoft would promptly disable that nuisance anyways. And to double-boot, you need to buy a new copy of Windows, anyways, which most people would get by buying a new PC. For the average consumer, it isn't about Windows, Mac, or Linux. It's about Windows, period, with moving to the Mac having the same probability as moviing to Canada for Americans, and Linux is like moving to France. Even for (Windows) power users, it's a similar situation.

Apple sold 4.5 Million Macs in 2005. PCs sold 208 Million units in 2005. Apple had 2.2% MarketShare in 2005.

Apple is on track to sell 5 Million units in 2006. PC are on track to sell 240 Million units. Apple will have 2.5% MarketShare in 2006.

PCs will sell over 250 Million units in 2007. So does Chris really think that Macs will sell 12.5 Million in 2007? NO WAY.

Let me just examine the situation:

You want to switch, but you will still dual-boot with windows.

So obviously, you like the security/stability of OS X witht the compatability of Windows.

Then why use Mac at all? Just get Linux (for FREE) and dual-boot with Windows. I do that, and it's great. You've got the stability of a Unix-based OS, and Windows when you need it. You can even use Wine, although that is not going to work in every situation.

There's not need to switch to Mac to get a stable, Unix-Based OS. And with Linux, you get something neither Windows or Mac can give- Open Source.

Just try it. I suggest Ubuntu. If you don't like it, then get your Mac. But I doubt you'll want one after linux.

Chris is an idiot. Do not listen to anything he has to say.

I was never and still am not anti-Microsoft. However, I recently switched to the Mac. The bootcamp dual boot option and the absence of viruses and malware were the main reasons. I still use my mac in windows mode quite often, but less and less. I play games very rarely so that wasn't a factor (though they run fine in windows mode). My old pc now serves as a fileserver while running Ubuntu.

Whether Ryan Carter is getting more biased against Microsoft is completely besides the point, he is just voicing his opinion. The question he raises is whether more people are switching or not and whether it has consequences for Microsoft.

Fact is that more and more people are switching to the mac, just look at the share of its safari browser. Will it ever come close to posing a serious threat to MS? I don't think so as the corporate environment is far less likely to make the switch (firefox doesnt even get much of a stronghold there). But the Mac has the potential to gain a serious foothold in the home-user market. As Chris Pirillo noted, computing is becoming more of an online event, the OS is becoming less important and it is less and less a problem to use several OS's next to eachother (e.g. in home vs office use).

As for the price difference, it's all relative. A recent comparison between a similarly equipped Dell and a Mac Pro showed a distinctive price advantage for the Mac Pro. (http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php)

But on the lower end, the PC's still hold the price advantage.

As for the availability of software, the PC has much more to offer, but in daily use I haven't missed anything on the Mac (on the contrary, I don't need all my spyware scanners anymore, for now), plus I can always switch to Windows if I really need to.

For a good OSX vs XP out-of-the-box comparison check this site (http://www.xvsxp.com/). OSX wins by a narrow margin.

I bought my first mac this morning (typing on it now), ive always been neutral but have used PCs for the last 14 years . Main reasons are:

* MacBook supprisingly appeared slightly cheaper than comparable spec branded PCs (Ive always had Sony or Toshiba in the past).
* I looked at some vista videos an I couldnt see a great deal to look forward to or a big improvement on current MacOs.
* MacOS 5 home machine licenses are very keenly priced.
* Most of the apps i use now come as standard with most OSs.

I think MS/PC vendors should have some serious concearns in the consumer market at certain price points.

Quite frankly, Vista, no matter how good (or bad) it is will still dominate. It will come preloaded on everyones PC, and it will be used at the office. People talk about how easy it is to switch to a Mac, or that you can just "dual boot" with Boot Camp. That is all fine and good for us tech types, but the typical home user doesn't really care. They just want a computer, and the majority of them are going to want a PC with Vista installed come next year.

Doubling of market share? That's just a pipe dream that Mac people like to think can happen (which even if it did, still doesn't amount to too much). Another "this is the year of the Mac" drivel. It is said every year. And what happens?

Personally I would dread a scenario where "the world turns to Apple" simply because that would mean replacing a market-dominant proprietary OS (Windows) for another proprietary OS (OSX) which in addition is locked to proprietary hardware. Would Apple's current drive for innovation keep it's momentum once it reached a dominat market-share? I don't know, but looking back into history I have some doubts.

Now, just look at the market-dominant iPod. It's a great DAP, beautifully designed, great interface and you just can't beat that clickwheel - genius. But it´s literally a straitjacket - you're practically locked to iTunes, it doesn't allow you to play anything but MP3s and AAC (Apple lossless can't be taken seriously, and I'm sure they would drop mp3 support if they could), they refuse to license Fairplay (talk about sarcastic!) and Apple purposedly crippled some features to feed the accessories market.

As for OS X, I think that there's little doubt that it is the best desktop operating system. It's secure, fast, versatile and elegant. But again, it locks us down to Apple's hardware. And although Macs are fine pieces of equipement (and if we take into account their build quality and features they're really not that expensive) I prefer to be free to choose the components inside my computer and easily upgrade at will.

Apple's Bootcamp is a very inteligent strategy to get Windows users to switch to Macs and thereby gain marketshare. But is it a fair strategy when Apple prevents OS X from being installed in any machines other than their own (it can actually be installed in PCs, like mentioned in previous comments, but involves some serious hacking and it's not legal)? Are they competing in equal terms with the other manufacturers? I don't think so. If Apple was under the same anti-competitive scrutiny that Microsoft is, they probably wouldn't be able to get away with some of the things they do?

And just as a side note, Ryan, how can you honestly deny your anti-Microsoft bias after posting such a creepy picture in your "Microsoft Agents on the way" post? :-)