Corporate Satisfaction Favors Leopard Over Vista

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
ChangeWave Research surveyed 2,200 US Corporate users and came away with some interesting numbers: 53% of those using Mac OS X 10.5 reported that they were very satisfied with their operating system. Of those using Windows XP or Windows Vista, however, 40% of the former and only 8% of the latter said they were very satisfied. However, another set of numbers are telling of the actual scale and impact of this report.

More than half -- 53% -- of the computers companies plan to buy in the second quarter will be equipped with Windows XP, the survey said, compared to 20% with a version of Windows Vista and just 8% with Mac OS X.
Click to expand...
 
Businesses have no real reason to change, most of their software probably won't work. Not surprising that they would choose the option that saves them money.
 
40% vs. 53% isn't that much of a difference.

Vista's pitiful 8% is probably due to the compatibility issues associated with any upgrade. I bet that number will be up to 40% after two years or so.
 
HOCP4ME said:
40% vs. 53% isn't that much of a difference.

Vista's pitiful 8% is probably due to the compatibility issues associated with any upgrade. I bet that number will be up to 40% after two years or so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, once patching on hardware and software sides of things start maturing. That's really been my only real holdback from jumping to Vista, is the fact that some of the games I play on might not be playable anymore, or I'd have to wait forever and a day for a working patch. I don't mean like Counter-Strike or Half-Life 2. I mean like, Freelancer, Starcraft, and Diablo 2. The old, old, old, games.
 
HOCP4ME said:
40% vs. 53% isn't that much of a difference.

Vista's pitiful 8% is probably due to the compatibility issues associated with any upgrade. I bet that number will be up to 40% after two years or so.
Click to expand...


Very satisfied with vista once the bugs get worked out. How long should it take? it has been a year. 8% vs 53% for a new OS that is telling one of the two companys doesn't care so much about making the user happy. Hope they do better next time they have a new OS they cant take a beating like that every time.
 
Vista is pretty nice for the end-user, but I can't imagine a business actually switching over to it.
 
Looking at the sales numbers, it would seem biz customers were far more satisfied with Xp than either Vista or OSX. Does it really matter in the end? Vista WILL be adopted, and Mac's OS will still be a niche in the biz world.

Plus, I am not too fond of polls of that ask how someone "feels" about something. The way the question is asked is every bit as important as the question itself. If handled in the same fashion as political ones, polls are misleading at best and out right fabrications at worst. Marketing polls are barely a step up from political polls imho.
 
That they're sticking with XP over Vista isn't a surprise. Corporate America wasn't gaga for XP a year after it's release.

Anyone with vertical apps is going to resist change until they've tested them all on vista and fixed any programs that won't work on vista. If those apps are from a third party, that could significantly delay the deployment.

I didn't read the article, (yeah I know) but it'd be interesting to know what types of jobs the Mac users filled. Were they developers, Executives? Where they doing desktop publishing, video or imaging? I think that the creative types in particular love the Mac. Whether it's actually better or it's design fits the way that they think, I do not now, but overwhelmingly, photographers and musicians prefer Macs.
 
It's not a surprise to me that they are going Windows over OS X. Too bad developers don't make versions for both Windows and Mac. I know plenty of people who would be willing to jump on the bandwagon and convert.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
Yeah, once patching on hardware and software sides of things start maturing. That's really been my only real holdback from jumping to Vista, is the fact that some of the games I play on might not be playable anymore, or I'd have to wait forever and a day for a working patch. I don't mean like Counter-Strike or Half-Life 2. I mean like, Freelancer, Starcraft, and Diablo 2. The old, old, old, games.
Click to expand...

I've played Freelancer and Starcraft fine on Vista... Don't own D2 so can't say but I'm not sure why it wouldn't work if Starcraft does.
 
OK... For starters, do a Google search on ChangeWave.... they carry a heavy Apple bias, even worse when you look at Vista.

From an SysAdmin perspective, Vista offers better GPO support, as well as improved SCCM usage. XP is still the default because, a year later, many companies are just now certifying apps. I saw this same behavior with the transition from Win2K to XP (which increased security profoundly). To top it off, I have WinK8 servers in production.... which I *love*.

As far as OSX... it wasn't until Leopard that AD support was even palpable. Even then, it didn't get more stable until 10.5.2. FWIW: Apples get a ton of viruses.... they just happen to all be trojans for Windows boxes.... but it won't stay that way for long.

-P

//typing this on a MBPro
 
It's not so much that vista won't work...it's that there's not much of a reason to upgrade. We have about 15,000 XP clients deployed, and there's really nothing new in Vista feature-wise that we'd even want to use. It would be thousands of hours of unnecessary planning and upgrades, and we have some pretty old laptops still deployed out in the field that would literally combust if we installed vista on them.

Server 2008, however, will absolutely be deployed. That's some good cooking right there.
 
Smoken Joe said:
Very satisfied with vista once the bugs get worked out. How long should it take? it has been a year. 8% vs 53% for a new OS that is telling one of the two companys doesn't care so much about making the user happy. Hope they do better next time they have a new OS they cant take a beating like that every time.
Click to expand...

Do you remember when XP came out? No one wanted it. Businesses were convinced that 2000 was all they needed, and forced a downgrade option from XP out of MS. The process repeats itself with each new OS.
 
Hurdler said:
Do you remember when XP came out? No one wanted it. Businesses were convinced that 2000 was all they needed, and forced a downgrade option from XP out of MS. The process repeats itself with each new OS.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows that XP was a godsend that everyone both at home and in IT had been waiting for.

The reason they're not converting to Vista is because XP is the perfect OS Designed by God and written by Jesus himself (all the bugs that needed fixing were put in by the Devil while Jesus was doing his daily chores: taking care of the sick and the poor).

The best thing about XP RTM was if you installed XP on old hardware, it performed faster than the your OS, even if your old os was DOS! And that is so cool. Jesus is way cool.
 
53% of how many of those 2200 people used macs? If we go by current market share, 5-6% of all computer users use Macs right now... ok so 6% of 2200 = 132 people ... 53% of 132 people = 70 people... so 70 out of 2200 people (or 3.18% of the tested subjects) like Mac OS X.

Wooooow.
 
Hurdler said:
Do you remember when XP came out? No one wanted it. Businesses were convinced that 2000 was all they needed, and forced a downgrade option from XP out of MS. The process repeats itself with each new OS.
Click to expand...

It was not anywhere near as bad as Vista is now. With XP businesses were not in a hurry to upgrade, but any PC running Win2K could handle XP for the most part, except the machines barely able to run Win2K. They didn't have stuff like Aero and 15GB installs and huge increases in RAM usage to deal with. XP SP0 could sit in under 100MB easily and was just a couple of gigs installed.

The biggest complaint at the time was the damn Fisher Price theme. Turn that off and XP is pleasant and friendly. Even the classic theme is a lot easier on the eyes than Win2K ever was.

---

I have to admit, after spending some time with Leopard I prefer the interface to XP64 or Vista. It's a little quirky, and the image previewer is not very good, but it looks really nice. Apple really knows their UI design.
 
OSX was released in what, 2000? 2001? What's the point in comparing the most recent service pack to a new OS? (Yes, it's still a service pack, even if you're stupid enough to pay for it.)

On March 24, 2001, Apple released Mac OS X v10.0 (internally codenamed Cheetah).[22] The initial version was slow, not feature complete, and had very few applications available at the time of its launch, mostly from independent developers. While many critics suggested that the operating system was not ready for mainstream adoption, they recognized the importance of its initial launch as a base on which to improve. ... Following some bug fixes, kernel panics became much less frequent.
Click to expand...

Simply releasing Mac OS X was received by the Macintosh community as a great accomplishment, for attempts to completely overhaul the Mac OS had been underway since 1996, and delayed by countless setbacks.
Click to expand...
You know the community is pathetic when the fact that they even released something, despite being slow, buggy, and lacking compatibility, counts as an accomplishment. Keep drinking the koolaid, kids.

Lets see how Vista fares in 2013, when it's the same age as OSX.
 
As it's pretty much only media or marketing companies that use Macs in a professional organisation of course they like Macs. They're cool.

Very satisfied with vista once the bugs get worked out. How long should it take? it has been a year. 8% vs 53% for a new OS that is telling one of the two companys doesn't care so much about making the user happy. Hope they do better next time they have a new OS they cant take a beating like that every time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, OSX, brand new that. No wait, it came out around the same time as Windows 2000 was going mainstream. A dot release is nothing like the difference between XP and Vista (Or 2003 vs 2008, same code base)

I like my Macs, I have 3, but the 'fans' just drive me mad, same as the XBox vs PS3 or ATI vs Nvidia discussions.
 
It's unbelievable that 20% of companies plan to buy Vista boxes. Those must be companies that use the PC mostly for excel and internet browsing. Or their IT admins should be fired.. two options basically.
 
I'm surprised it's not higher, honestly... Mac OSX is a basic vanilla OS, with everything you'd need for office use easily available right from the dock; which is great since most office users tend not to be 'pc natives'. For corporate networking, though... no idea how they would manage it.

Keep in mind the poll is in regards to office users, not the IT's who manage the pc's and networks...
 
noc_81 said:
I'm surprised it's not higher, honestly... Mac OSX is a basic vanilla OS, with everything you'd need for office use easily available right from the dock; which is great since most office users tend not to be 'pc natives'. For corporate networking, though... no idea how they would manage it.

Keep in mind the poll is in regards to office users, not the IT's who manage the pc's and networks...
Click to expand...

Where did you see that it was regarding 'office' users?

I thought it said specifically 'corporate'.

As for ChangeWave, as someone said, Google them.

They're heavy on Mac advertising and PC slamming. To top it off, their spinmachine is about as logical as a rabid iFanatic in a Dell shop.
 
The corporation won't be satisfied when they have to buy overpriced machines every few years instead of cheaper PCS that are as good if not better bang for the buck.
 
ghostchamber said:
Vista is pretty nice for the end-user, but I can't imagine a business actually switching over to it.
Click to expand...
As others have said- it will.

XP, while now we see it as a big leap, had the same perceptions Vista has now (the old 2000/XP threads are almost eerie how identical they are to today's!)

GORANKAR said:
If handled in the same fashion as political ones, polls are misleading at best and out right fabrications at worst. Marketing polls are barely a step up from political polls imho.
Click to expand...
Yep, exactly.
That's why I rarely watch mainstream news anymore... Most of it is fabricated or HEAVILY leaning to one side or the other.

These "polls" like the Presidential Approval polls, are all crap. I don't care WHO is in office, it's just crap...


alexfort93 said:
Too bad developers don't make versions for both Windows and Mac. I know plenty of people who would be willing to jump on the bandwagon and convert.
Click to expand...
Same exact reason why virus writers don't write on OS X...
Would you rather write a single product to work with 90% of the world, or a product that works with 5%?

Same here, it's just that would you rather hire developers to write for a single platform, or hire developers to write for BOTH platforms? That's some big overhead just to reach 5% of the world.

Nemesis999 said:
OSX was released in what, 2000? 2001? What's the point in comparing the most recent service pack to a new OS? (Yes, it's still a service pack, even if you're stupid enough to pay for it.)
Click to expand...

I thought I was the only one that thought this way....
Yes- all Leopard is is a SP.
Which is why, hardware aside, OS X still costs a hell of alot more than Windows.
2-3 service packs in Windows are free. You're paying $130 a pop on the Mac.
 
as much as vista sucks in the workplace... leapord has caused even more problems. we are a publishing company that has graphic designers (mac) and office users (xp)...

lepord is only on one mac for a reason...
1. corrupts network saved files that were not an issue in osx before... so saving a 500mb+ file and finding out later its corrupt and due in 30 minutes... wow awesome apple.
2. files get corrupted on saving with adobe products
3. you have to be rich... requires you to buy new versions like cs3 of your software since older adobe products (2 years old ) will no longer work..

once again apples are for designers and rich kids....
 
jroe52 said:
3. you have to be rich... requires you to buy new versions like cs3 of your software since older adobe products (2 years old ) will no longer work..
Click to expand...

That is a big point...
Windows has TONS of stuff to be compatible with (which is frankly, amazing they can work this well with it).
Apple has the freedom to throw all that out the window, and call it "innovation" :rolleyes:

This is another reason it makes no sense for businesses. They have propriety and old software they use.



But nothing can come close to Windows/Server, GPOs, etc... Just beats everything.
 
Here at work we are not moving the Mac to 10.5 (from 10.4) or the PCs from XP to Vista. Neither offers any compelling business reason for an upgrade.

I would be more comfortable with a move to 10.5 than I would Vista but it's a moot point: I'm not recommending it and we're not doing it. Both 10.4 and XP are doing well, are stable and are known, dependable quantities.
 
Well of course that everyone who uses Mac must be happy :)
Otherwise they would have to admit they overspent for piece of crap software :)

I remember using macs for designing logic transistors in my University - the only worse thing they had in whole building were 20 year old sun consoles :)
 
Michaelius said:
Well of course that everyone who uses Mac must be happy :)
Otherwise they would have to admit they overspent for piece of crap software :)

I remember using macs for designing logic transistors in my University - the only worse thing they had in whole building were 20 year old sun consoles :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I spent SO much money on my Mac. I really need to justify my purchase since I could get a WAY faster Windows machine for the SAME price:

MacBook Price: $1299 shipped

Specs:
2.4GHz core 2 duo
160GB hard drive
Bluetooth
Wireless N
13.3 inch glossy widescreen
Intel X3100 integrated graphics
iWeb, iPhoto, iDvd (those are all I'll ever use, so that's all I'll mention)


Dell XPS Notebook Price: $1344 shipped

Specs
2.4GHz core 2 duo
160GB hard drive
Bluetooth
Wireless N
13.3 inch glossy widescreen
Intel X3100 integrated graphics
Windows Photo Browser and Movie Maker (Never used movie maker much, but I like the photo browser a lot)

Gee, I really got ripped off by my Mac... I actually got it for $150 cheaper than that since I bought it at school. I priced a similarly equipped HP, and it was a little cheaper, but doesn't have as nice of a screen as the MacBook or Dell and is a little thicker than both. The Dell and the MacBook sport a little better battery life than the HP, as well, and those touch sensitive buttons are known for being problematic on the new HP notebooks.

I'm not a fanboy, but I hate to see people that think that Macs are so overpriced. Yeah, I think the Mac Pro is overpriced, but their laptops are quite good and speedy for what they cost. I do web design and a ton of photo editing. The Mac has the advantage of OSX's stable platform for editing with its efficient memory dump and smooth GUI. It also runs Vista Home Premium just fine. I don't use it for gaming, just testing my web sites, and Office tasks. It's really a great laptop and isn't more expensive than the competition. It was a piece of cake to upgrade the memory, and also the hard drive to 250GB, too.

Don't get me confused with a Mac fanboy, either. I have a Q6700 overclocked to 3.65GHz at home with 8GB of ram and Vista 64 bit. I just like Apple for their midrange laptops. That's what they really sell the most of, and they are very reasonably priced and easy to upgrade.
 
TheZanderMan said:
MacBook Price: $1299 shipped

Specs:
2.4GHz core 2 duo
160GB hard drive
Bluetooth
Wireless N
13.3 inch glossy widescreen
Intel X3100 integrated graphics
iWeb, iPhoto, iDvd (those are all I'll ever use, so that's all I'll mention)


Dell XPS Notebook Price: $1344 shipped

Specs
2.4GHz core 2 duo
160GB hard drive
Bluetooth
Wireless N
13.3 inch glossy widescreen
Intel X3100 integrated graphics
Windows Photo Browser and Movie Maker (Never used movie maker much, but I like the photo browser a lot)
Click to expand...

You realize that you compared the bottom of the mac line to the top of the Dell line for laptops right?

If you had compared that to the Inspirons, which are the bottom of the Dell Line, you're have seen that the comparable Inspiron is only 974 and has a larger hard drive and screen.

Just something to think about.
 
As being a net admin for a company with well over 5000 workstations. 99% are Xp workstations and 1% being MAC OSX, i find that the MAC ppl are very satisified with their workstation. Until they try to do something that requires active directory or VPN, or user shares on windows machines. They are so oblivious on how to actually use their dumbed down OS we have to figure it all out for them. They have no idea how to use a computer, which is why they love their MAC. Until they have to do higher level stuff manually that we can setup automatically via login scripts/AD profiles on XP machines, they think the MAC is perfect. Of course they bitch and moan why everyday shit doesnt work right on their system. Ignorance is bliss when it comes to using the OSX.
 
Apallohadas said:
You realize that you compared the bottom of the mac line to the top of the Dell line for laptops right?

If you had compared that to the Inspirons, which are the bottom of the Dell Line, you're have seen that the comparable Inspiron is only 974 and has a larger hard drive and screen.

Just something to think about.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! Compare comparable items or don't bother. I can compare a server to a mac anyday too and the mac would come out on top price wise. Silly Mac Owners.:D
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Microsoft is a victim of their own success. They made XP too well. Nobody wants to give it up.
 
Azhar said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Microsoft is a victim of their own success. They made XP too well. Nobody wants to give it up.
Click to expand...

This is true.
That, and how many YEARS did it take people to catch up? 6???
It took 6 years for software and hardware companies to (in general) support XP well.

That is ridiculous.


I'd say the main factor was the huge amount of time there... More support as well as more penetration in the market...
 
Azhar said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Microsoft is a victim of their own success. They made XP too well. Nobody wants to give it up.
Click to expand...

i dunno about "victim".... its a good position to be in when your only competition is your self.... people will eventually flock to vista from XP... all in due time.... the point is they won't be flocking anywhere else...

microsoft is just making sure they retain their market share

Iratus said:
Yeah, OSX, brand new that. No wait, it came out around the same time as Windows 2000 was going mainstream. A dot release is nothing like the difference between XP and Vista (Or 2003 vs 2008, same code base)
Click to expand...
you DO realize 2k was Windows NT 5.0, and XP was Windows NT 5.1 right?

vista is supposed to be v6.0....

but thier version numbers may just be arbitrary.... just saying, OSX upgrades (although they may be more expensive then they should be) aren't just service packs... they add quite a bit of functionality... but you're right, they aren't new OSes...
 
alexheinz said:
Everyone in this thread should get paid by Microsoft for how much they defend Vista.
Click to expand...

Er, what? So everyone who defends Macs should get paid by Apple? Do you have an opinion of your own that you would like to share, or do you just want to increase your post count by saying nothing whatsoever?

Studies like this are flawed. The whole problem is the atmosphere surrounding OS X vs. Windows. OS X users use OS X because they like it - so of course they will have a higher satisfaction rate. The Windows world isn't so rosy because people who don't like Windows are generally still stuck using Windows (either because software forces them to or they don't know of alternatives). Its going to be the same with Linux users. Compare Ubuntu's satisfaction rate vs. that of Windows and it is going to be higher because only people who want Ubuntu in the first place are going to use it!

Look at other Apple software that is made available on WIndows machines. Quicktime - largely "meh" software. iTunes - I hate it, but others like it, so we'll call this a + for Apple. Then there is Safari, which Mac users seem to proclaim as the greatest browser ever, yet got ripped a new one when the Windows version launched. So of 3 Apple products available to Windows, only 1 can be called a success, with 1 being more or less ignored (Quicktime), and 1 being slammed to hell and back for its crappiness (Safari). The Windows world is simple more demanding, less accepting atmoshpere. Flaws that are overlooked in the OS X world don't go ignored in the Windows world at all.

That, and I'm guessing the people who aren't satisfied with Vista either A) Have hardware driver issues that aren't MS's fault, or B) Upgraded from XP and were expecting something more. Vista is solid in its own right (eg, when installed on a new computer), but I wouldn't recommend someone with XP upgrade if XP is working fine for them.
 
goodcooper said:
just saying, OSX upgrades (although they may be more expensive then they should be) aren't just service packs... they add quite a bit of functionality... but you're right, they aren't new OSes...
Click to expand...
It's much like XP SP2... added quite a few minor (and a few major) enhancements... just like Leopard did ;)


kllrnohj said:
Flaws that are overlooked in the OS X world don't go ignored in the Windows world at all.
Click to expand...

And, again... I think this is yet another huge issue for Apple if they ever gain significant market share.

Like I've said before... People will be surprised how much like Windows the Mac would have to become.
 
They surveyed corporate users. Did they survey sysadmins?

Client/server networking with OS X has been a real mixed experience for me. Of course, the user may not necessarily see that.

I also think that if you use Leopard at work, you're likely to be a Mac user in general. If you are, your satisfaction rate is probably higher than someone who uses whatever they are given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top