I am the first to admit that I give Microsoft a hard time over its ridiculous variety of Windows versions that gets released with every new iteration of the famous OS but equally so, I’ll point out that Linux is not going to be any real threat to the desktop landscape anytime soon.

Not only is the desktop interface and user interaction not ready for the general consumer market the vast variety of versions, also called distros, makes Windows look like a walk in the park. To give you an idea of just how insane the world of Linux distros are take a look at this infographic.

hat tip to @pauloflaherty

The insanity of the Linux distro ecosystem [Pic] is a post from: The Inquisitr

However there is one headline that while being reworded has the same basic message: OS X and Linux Growing Faster Than Windows.

It is this headline that Klint Finley used in a post at ReadWriteWeb and is the latest one today to really irritate me because it is being based on the two things with the first being Windows 7 while setting records for the fastest selling OS in history saw a dip of 4% in Microsoft earnings. The second source of this imaginative massaging of numbers is a Gartner report, which should immediately be considered suspect.

However. Let’s look at what is being said in the Gartner report:

Linux (server) and Mac OS were the fastest-growing subsegments in the server and client OS segments, respectively, while Microsoft maintained its leading position in the overall OS market, with 78.6 percent market share.

First the Linux matter.

There is no denying, and no-one in their right mind has ever denied that Linux rules the server market; and it will continue to do so for a very long time, but nowhere in the Gartner report does it give any percentage of how Linux was beating out Microsoft products. In fact what they do say is that Linux was the fastest growing subsegment:

“In the server OS market, Linux (server) was the fastest-growing subsegment in 2010 as end users adopted more open-standard systems. Within the Unix OS market, IBM AIX had high single-digit growth, but Unix generally experienced modest or negative growth,” said Alan Dayley, managing vice president at Gartner. “The EOL threat for Unix OSs such as Tru64 and NetWare pushed the ‘other proprietary Unix’ subsegment down 39.6 percent in 2010 as some vendors retired their proprietary Unix and moved users to more open systems.”

This isn’t a case of Linux beating out Windows but rather it taking marketshare away from other UNIX based server providers. As much as Microsoft would like to see some big growth in the server market that isn’t likely to change anytime soon as Linux based servers are the defacto standard of the majority of web companies out there as well as being a favorite of new startups.

Plus does 5.7% really equate faster growth or it is just a natural growth curve based on the number of new servers that have come online over the last year?

Now about those Mac OS X numbers.

Gartner has a number of 15.8% as its growth but I have also seen 23% being bandied about as being Mac’s growth point but regardless, this fastest growing OS is an operating system that only had 1.6% market share in 2009 and grew to 1.7% in 2010. This is an OS that hasn’t even broken the 10% market share level, and this is also at a time where Microsoft went from a 77.9% market share in 2009 to a 78.6% market share in 2010.

Where’s the fastest growth that everyone is babbling about, a fraction of a percent difference between the two isn’t faster growth. No, what it is though is normal market growth across all the companies as more people start actually using computers.

Is Apple, or rather its Mac division growing? Of course it is and 15.8%, or even 23% growth is gratifying to see especially in a time when there is increasing choice of platforms. Lets be real here though – as much fun as numbers like these from Gartner are, and provide excellent fodder for pageview headlines, there is no fastest growingsituation here. It’s just normal growth so get back to me on this fastest growth thing when we start seeing Windows market share going down at the same rate that Mac is.

Originally posted at WinExtra and reposted here with permission

About that silly “fastest growing OSes” thing is a post from: The Inquisitr

Remember the survey not too long ago that showed people who have less-prestigious domain names in their email addresses (like Aol instead of GMail) actually were older, less tech-savvy and so on?

Hunch, the website behind the last batch of data, has gathered up a bit of info on the Mac versus PC debate. Apple has somewhat successfully positioned itself (and thus its pricier, somewhat hype-y products) as the choice of cooler, younger, more urban users. But is that rooted in any sort of actual user data? Hunch’s blog splotched together the information in an infographic, the internet’s favorite way of consuming statistics, and the results might not surprise you.

According to the data, PC people were 36% “liberal,” on average, compared with 58% of Mac-using commies. Mac users were 22% more likely to be in the coveted 18-24 year old demographic, compared with a 22% likelihood of PC users to be a creaky 35-49 years old. Mac users also tended to have completed four years of higher education at a rate of 67%, versus 54% of PC users. 52% of Mac users live in cities, while PC users were 21% more likely to be hicks and 18% more likely to live in the suburbs.

PC users were 26% more likely to want to “fit in,” while Mac users were 13% more likely to see themselves as unique and special. But PC users were almost 40% more likely to rate themselves as mathematically talented, while 12% more Mac users think they’d do better on the verbal portion of the SATs. Mac users also self-identified more frequently as parties, at a 50% higher likelihood to say they “frequently” throw shindigs.

Some of the differences were a bit more esoteric, with PC users preferring McDonald’s fries to Mac users higher likelihood of liking pretentious “bistro” fries. PC users also tended to like Pepsi and Jolt, while Mac users say they prefer to sup San Pellegrino Limonata or Boylan’s Root Beer.

The list of differences is pretty extensive, and you can view it via the link above. Do you think Mac users are as sophisticated as the infographic makes them out to be, by and large, or is Mac preference just an affectation? Do you think your preference in computer is as definitive as the data suggests it might be?

PC, Mac stereotypes may have some basis, says unscientific survey is a post from: The Inquisitr

After several spurious sightings in the wild, rumors intensified this morning that the hotly anticipated Google Chrome OS might be released within the week.

Google said earlier in 2009 that the open source operating system would be available “later this year.” A mid-to-late November launch would make sense, but don’t get too excited yet. It’s expected that the code will be opened to developers, and that it’s not going to be something you can install on your netbook just yet. Essential functions and details like driver support will ostensibly be forthcoming, and the Chrome OS likely won’t be usable out of the box for average schmohawks right away.

As all the information surrounding the Chrome OS release this week is rumor/speculation at this point, the nature of the possible impending release is up in the air- plus scant details surrounding the Chrome OS and an abundance of fake information have made users even more curious, fueling chatter. According to PC World, there is a chance that the alleged version allegedly set for this week (supposedly) could be a stripped down version most users could test run and use for basic functions. Either way, we’ll update details of the possible launch as soon as they become available.

Chrome OS to launch within the week? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ubuntu 9.10 doesn’t only bring new advances to the Linux OS front, it has what I think is the coolest OS name to date. I still think a Snow Leopard would quite easily tear apart a Koala, literally and figuratively, but the new Ubuntu OS seems like it was named by a hippy on LSD while playing Commodore 64 games.

The new OS features a better (faster) graphical boot sequence which ditches those annoying text scrolls, while also providing a much improved audio framework which was needed to spread sound more evenly across multiple applications during multitasking.

Ubuntu 9.10 also features a software center which makes it easier to “visually” remove or add applications, much like what we already see in Windows PCs.

The new system is available for desktop, server and netbook systems and can be downloaded now from Ubuntu. [Engadget via Ubuntu]

Ubuntu 9.10 “Karmic Koala” OS Now Available is a post from: The Inquisitr

Windows 7 is sooo yesterday, actually it’s not so yesterday until October 23rd, but that hasn’t stopped Windows 8 and even Windows 9 rumors from surfacing and the possibility of a 128 bit architecture has already got me excited.

Info about both Operating systems surfaced on Microsoft Team Member Robert Morgan’s LinkedIn account where he talks about his role with both new platforms. His profile states that each OS supports some sort of 128-bit compatibility with the latter fully supporting IA-128 support.

Here’s Morgan’s LinkedIn Account Statement:

“Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP, and IBM.

Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions in the hardware simulation to work for Windows 8 and definitely Windows 9.”

Windows 8 was originally slated to be a 64-bit only system so any 128-bit support is more than welcomed. Just keep in mind that Morgan only says their “working” on that type of system, not that it will actually come to fruition.

According to Slashgear Windows 8 Features should include:

a new, improved hybernate/resume system, a new remote desktop system, and new security features including a PatchGuard follow-on.

Regardless of the time it takes to reach market I’m excited for the endless possibilities that should eventually arrive. We can begin looking for Microsoft 8 in 2011, possibly 2012.

Now That Windows 7 Is Almost Here, Let’s Talk About Windows 8 And 9 is a post from: The Inquisitr

At a roundtable at LinuxCon 2009 Linux creator Linus Torvalds was asked by Novell engineer James Bottomley whether feature sets in the Linux kernel were being released to fast, before the kernal is stabilized. The question came about due to a study that tracked kernel releases that suggested performance had dropped about two percentage points at every release for a total of 12 percent over the last ten releases.

As he was asked if this was a problem Torvalds said “We’re getting bloated and huge. Yes, it’s a problem.

Even as the problem is acknowledged the solution doesn’t seem to be readily available as Torvalds admits as well that there is no plan to try and put the kernel on a “diet”

Asked what the community is doing to solve this, he balked. "Uh, I’d love to say we have a plan," Torvalds replied to applause and chuckles from the audience. "I mean, sometimes it’s a bit sad that we are definitely not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel that I envisioned 15 years ago…The kernel is huge and bloated, and our icache footprint is scary. I mean, there is no question about that. And whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse."

He maintains, however, that stability is not a problem. "I think we’ve been pretty stable," he said. "We are finding the bugs as fast as we’re adding them — even though we’re adding more code."

Bottomley took this to mean that Torvalds views that the current level of integration acceptable under those terms. But Mr. Linux corrected him. "No. I’m not saying that," Torvalds answered. "Acceptable and avoidable are two different things. It’s unacceptable but it’s also probably unavoidable."

Source: The Register – Linus calls Linux ‘bloated and huge’

As much a Linux has been praised for its slim and trim operating system the reality is that as more and more is added into the development cycle to keep it modern it is inevitable that it might get a bit paunchy in the midriff.

Torvalds says Linux kernel ‘bloated and huge’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

GraphJam has compiled a handy venn diagram to help you select the operating system that suits your needs.

Seen in the comments: Linux is user friendly… it’s just very selective about who its friends are.

Which OS is right for you? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Now before the penguin brigade jumps in with their typical Linux is free crap let me just say this – STFU. This post as should be obvious from the headline is about those two popular operating systems that people pay money for. So swim back to your icebergs and leave me alone.

With that necessary disclaimer out of the way let’s get to the serious discussion. This summer and fall is going to see the wide spread release of both OS X Snow Leopard and Windows 7. Discounting the obvious fanboy beating of the chest about whose operating system is better than the other I am more interested in the price being paid by the consumer. Or rather if we are approaching a period where there is a break point where the price being charged is too much.

The realistic approach of OS X

As much as Window fans might like to point to the fact that Apple holds a hammerlock on it’s hardware and software which in some ways gives it an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing its operating system the fact is that Apple really just see the OS as an ends to a means. As such it has always priced its OS at a level that would make any Windows user drool.

Yes much of Apple’s profits originate from its hardware sales with the OS being a necessity in order to get their customers to buy their other products which are more realistically priced. The one thing to keep in mind though is that this OS pricing due to the hardware/software lock is only possible because unlike Windows, Apple doesn’t have to expend large development costs in supporting the same depth of hardware.

As a result it is easy to understand how Apple is able to provide Snow Leopard for $29 an upgrade or $129 for the full install. One has to wonder though that while the upgrade price is a real sweet spot, why is there such a difference between it and the full install version. Is there really that much difference to justify the $100 difference?

The hair pulling approach of Windows

Windows has always gotten flack for its pricing of the operating system, as well as for the insanity of the different versions of the same software. After all as it is pointed out in all the discussion that is starting about Windows 7 pricing it is basically the same DVD being sold for all versions. While this might make it nice and easy for upgrading between the various flavors of the OS it definitely makes one scratch one’s head as to why they even need so many versions.

Microsoft has always been known for trying to milk its OS sales for every cent they can. So having as many different versions of Windows has been to their advantage. The only problem is that when they tried this with Windows Vista it came back to bite them hard on the ass. I think that is one of the reasons why Vista failed in the marketplace – people didn’t have a clue as to which version to upgrade to. So since XP was still a rock solid OS why worry about it.

So I think when it came to Windows 7 there was some serious rethinking about this mistake and which is why we are back to seeing three versions being pushed into the pipeline. While this is a good thing to see the same attitude of change hasn’t really been seen when it comes to the pricing. they might be touting an 8% price drop from Vista as a great consumer oriented deal but the fact is Windows is still price heavy.

For example these are the current proposed prices expected when Windows 7 goes live

Upgrade Path:

Home Premium – $119.00 US / $129.95 Cdn 
Professional – $199.00 US / $249.95 Cdn
Ultimate – $219.00 US / $279. 95 Cdn

Full Install Path:

Home Premium – $199.00 US / $224.95 Cdn
Professional – $299.00 US / $329.95 Cdn
Ultimate – $319.00 US / $349.95 Cdn

Source: Ars Technica / Canadian prices courtesy of Kris Abel’s Tech Life

As I pointed out in the section about Apple is that Microsoft has an incredible myriad of hardware to support which will obviously add to the cost of developing the OS. That doesn’t mean though that as we more to more of a digital download world that the prices being asked for the Windows OS is entirely justified.

Right off the bat the idea of an Ultimate version makes absolutely no sense in a general, or power user, consumer market. When Vista came out with that I wrote about how it was a waste of money and my opinion hasn’t changed with the Windows 7 version of it either. Once you take that out of the equation you are left with Home Premium and Professional. At what point does the consumer market switch from a premium user to a professional one?

Even though Microsoft might like to point to some minor price drop as their way of making the OS more affordable the fact is it isn’t. Beside confusing consumers as to what version of Windows 7 is best for them the idea that an OS is worth the prices they want to charge is ludicrous especially considering the large majority of their sales will be at the lower OEM prices. We also need to take into consideration the reality that we are very quickly moving into a downloadable distribution channel which means Microsoft’s delivery costs would be miniscule compared to the current retail sales channel.

The changing landscape of consumer usage

While Apple’s pricing of OS X might be more consumer friendly that Windows multi-tier pricing they are both ignoring how the consumer use of computers has changed. Where their prices might be applicable and to a point understandable when most homes, or individuals only had one computer that in a growing number is no longer the case.

Whether they be laptops, media centers, gaming rigs, laptops or even the new netbooks it is no longer uncommon to see multiple computers within one home. In the case of a family chances are that each member has some form computer they are using. Even on an individual level people stand a good chance of having more than one machine.

So instead of only having to purchase one license people are having to buy multiple licenses and there is no denying the expense regardless of OS. Take myself: I have my main desktop, a media machine in the process of being rebuilt, my wife’s laptop and plans for a laptop of my own. That’s for licenses for Windows 7 that I am going to need 4 of which means a cost of $899.80 for the Home Premium or $1,319.80 for the Professional version. Even if I was an Apple user and all those were Macs I would still be looking at $387.00 USD.

And really what is the difference between 1 licensed version and 4?

The serial number is the only difference. So in effect we are paying in excess of anywhere from $500.00 to $1,000 for three sets of numbers.

As much as we bitch about old media being stuck in the mindset of outmoded business models the fact is even supposedly modern tech businesses are stuck in the same mindset.

And they wonder why stuff gets pirated.

Are operating systems too expensive at any price? is a post from: The Inquisitr