Why Microsoft Windows Still the Number One Operating System
Forget sales figures. Forget installation statistics. Forget that other more powerful and stable operating systems exist. Microsoft Windows remains the number one operating system for two simple reason: the competition fails on price and ease of use.
Top two Windows alternatives
There are more operating system alternatives than you might realize; however, the top two choices remain Macintosh OS 10 and some flavor of Linux (probably Ubuntu at this moment). Both of these alternatives offer superior power, greater stability, and lack the security flaws commonly found in Windows. Despite these advantages, however, cost and ease of use still drive purchase decisions for most consumers.
Cost: the reason why Macintosh OS 10 can’t compete against Windows
Windows Vista might be considered a failure by most technology pundits. Nevertheless a Vista based computer still costs significantly less than the Macintosh equivalent. If the average consumer is trying to decide between a $449 Compaq laptop and a $1099 MacBook with the same basic hardware configuration, the $449 Compaq wins every time. Die hard Mac fanboys might disagree, but the average consumer is NOT a Mac fanboy. Average consumers just want a good computer for a good price, and the Macintosh just prices itself right out of the ballpark.
Ease of use: Windows has it, Linux still lacks it
Linux distributions (distros) have come a long way from the day when I first installed Slackware from a set of 1.44 MB floppies on a 386SX. Today nearly all Linux distros install from a bootable CD allowing you to “test-drive” a particular distro before committing to a complete installation. And while a typical Linux installation is more turn-key than ever before, it’s still very rare when a Linux installation works flawlessly on a computer without some post installation tweaking. Try and install the latest version of Ubuntu (by far the best distro available today for the average user) on a laptop computer. Chances are that once you’re complete, the most important part of the laptop won’t work correctly — wireless network access with WPA encryption enabled.
Post installation tweaking is one of the top reasons Linux hasn’t become a serious threat to Microsoft Windows. Don’t get me wrong. A fresh CD install of Windows also requires post installation tweaking; however, the necessary tweaks are far easier for the average user, and if they can’t figure it out, they usually have access to someone that can. Also, most Windows machines don’t need tweaking because the OS comes preinstalled. If Linux were pre-installed, things might be a little different. But alas, buying a computer pre-installed with Linux from the typical big-box electronics store is completely impossible.
Windows will dominate until things change
Macintosh loses to Windows because it’s simply too expensive. Sorry Mac fanboys and girls, Macintosh does make a beautiful computer; however, that difference doesn’t justify double the money. Lower the price, and people easily start thinking Macintosh when it’s time to buy a new computer.
Linux is still too difficult to install from scratch to make it a serious Windows competitor. Offer Linux pre-installed on a computer and show users that all additional applications are also free along with greater power, stability, and security and I think people would consider making the switch to Linux.
Above all the average consumer buys a computer from a big-box electronics store. What type of computers do these stores have covering the display shelves? Windows machines. Not a single machine running Linux. Fortunately, you will find some Macintosh computers sitting next to the Windows machines, but the sales people at these stores simply cannot make the argument to spend double the money just to get a Macintosh.
The computer desktop still belongs to Microsoft and will stay that way until Macs get cheaper or a Linux distro comes along that is so easy to install your grandma could do it. Until that time, it’s a Windows world.
Share, Bookmark, or Email this post
|
|
If you liked this post, subscribe to TechTraction's RSS feed or TechTraction's email feed
Filed under: Tech Commentary
[…] szahiran just wrote an article aboutHere’s a preview of it: […]
Kind of a funny trackback. Last time I checked my name was Bret and not szahiran.
You need to read a little on the history of Microsoft because this kind of reasoning leaves out very important reasons why this company sailed to the number one position. It wasn’t superior technology… it wasn’t ease of use… it was having their OS pre-installed everywhere on all PCs and laptops.
History says that if a competitor tried to get their OS installed with these vendors, Microsoft would threaten them, raise the cost of doing business with them and many other mafia-like practices.
Once you’re number one, it’s very difficult to force a switch. Now that some options are slowly opening up for Linux in the retail distribution markets, changes will happen but very slowly. It’s amatueristic to think otherwise.
I’m writing this as a Windows XP user who tires on the spin given to stories like this.
Yes, I am aware of the history of Microsoft and its highly questionable business practices. And I agree that Microsoft did not get to number on price and ease of use alone but rather by strong arming its “business partners” into doing things “their way.” However, the tide is changing. More and more people are seriously looking for an alternative to Microsoft (I know that I am). But the reason why people aren’t jumping on the alternatives is just as I stated: price and ease of use. Microsoft Windows is not a superior operating system but it is certainly number one in the areas that mean the most to average consumers. To think otherwise is equally amatureristic.
Thanks for stopping by and adding to the decision.
Everyday I hear how OVERPRICED Macs are compared to other computers. Even I believed this myth to a certain extent, even though I’m a Mac user. So I went on the Dell and HP web sites to do a comparison between their machines and Apple’s MacBook and Mac Pro, just for kicks.
First of all, let me say that I priced laptops that had almost exactly the same specs as the MacBook. The Dell laptops with 13.3 inch screen had no option for 2 Gigabytes of RAM, so I defaulted all the models in the comparison to 4 GB. I also couldn’t find an HP laptop with a 13.3 screen, but I think the comparison still proves my point. I also defaulted the Dell and HP models to Vista Ultimate because as you probably know, OS X comes with ALL the features in one version. There is no Home or Professional edition of OS X. This is what I came up with:
Dell XPS M1330
13.3 inch display
2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Vista Ultimate
4 GB RAM
200 GB hard drive 7200 RPM (No 250 option for Dell)
CD/DVD Burner
128 MB nVidia GeForce 8400M GS
Price: $1,824.00
MacBook
13.3 inch display
2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
OS X Leopard
4 GB RAM
250 GB hard drive 5400 RPM
Double-Layer SuperDrive
144 MB Intel GMA X3100
Price: $1,799.00
HP Pavilion dv2700t
14.1 inch display
2.4 GHz Intel Core 2
Vista Ultimate
4 GB RAM
250 GB hard drive 5400 RPM
DVD/RW Double Layer
128 MB Nvidia GeForce 8400 GS
Price: $1,884.99
In the Mac Pro comparison, I also sought out machines made by Dell and HP that had similar specs. Because it was so difficult to find a Dell with specs above Quad level, I defaulted all the processors to around 2.8 GHz Quad processors, which is the lowest processor that Apple offers for their Mac Pros. This is what I came up with:
Dell XPS 720
2.93 GHz Intel Quad Core
Vista Ultimate
2 GB RAM
500 GB hard drive 7200 RPM
CD/DVD Double Layer Drive
nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
Price: $3,529.00
Mac Pro
2.8 GHz Intel Quad Core
OS X
2 GB RAM
500 GB hard drive 7200 RPM
Double-Layer SuperDrive
nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
Price: $2,599.00
(Note: Apple’s default model is a 2.8 GHz 8-CORE model, but there is an option for a 2.8 GHz QUAD model for $500 less if you go to the configuration page on Apple’s web site.)
HP Blackbird
2.93 GHz Intel Quad Core
Vista Ultimate
2 GB RAM
500 GB hard drive 7200 RPM
Super Multi-drive
nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
Price: $3,544.00
I am well aware that you can build desktops for much lower than the ones shown here, but the majority of people DO NOT build their own computers. My purpose is to show that products with similar specs from competing PC manufacturers don’t offer desktops that are priced significantly lower than Macs. Macs just seem more expensive because outside of the Mac Mini, Apple does not cater to the low end market. If you want to use the car analogy, Dell and HP are like GM, which makes both low end Buicks and high end Corvettes. Apple is more like BMW, which makes only high end sedans and roadsters. In other words, there are no Mini Towers in Apple’s lineup, but if there WERE, they would likely be priced just as reasonably as their PC rivals.
Furthermore, in my opinion, Macs trump the PCs in this line-up because you have the added ability to run both Windows and Linux natively, which gives you access to ALL software and games on the market. So if anyone wants to understand WHY people may prefer Macs over PCs, you might want to consider this.
Wow. That’s quite a bit of research you did there; however, I think your comparisons, while extensive, are still slightly misleading.
Right now I’m looking at a Best Buy ad offering a Dell laptop with an Intel Core Duo 2 processor, 2 GB of RAM, 250 GB hard drive and a dual-layer DVD/CD burner/player running Microsoft Windows Vista home edition for $799. Which Mac comes close to that price? Nothing.
Is that Dell a better machine than the Mac regardless of price? No. I agree the Mac in many cases is a better machine. But try to make the case to the average consumer and it’s near impossible. The average consumer views a computer as nothing more than another electronic device they need in their home. The car analogy might work but most consumers will still go for the cheaper machine because it’ll get the job done and there is a common belief that any computer will be obsolete within a year so why pay top dollar.
The point of the post was not to slam Macs or Linux. I like them both, matter of fact I love them both. But until they address the cost and ease of use issues, they will remain a niche market appealing only to certain computer users.
Try to put aside any Mac or Linux bias you might have for a moment and consider this question. If grandma comes along and says, “Dear, I think it’s time to get a computer. I want to send some emails to my friends and surf the web a little bit. What should I buy?” Does grandma really need a Mac or Linux machine? Wouldn’t she just be better off with the $449 Compaq laptop running Windows and pocketing the money she saved by not buying a Mac? The Mac might still be better, but it is really necessary?
Thanks for the extensive price research and thoughtful comment. I appreciate your participation.
You don’t see Linux machines on the shelves of big-box retailers because these stores expect computer buyers to buy a pile of high-markup software. Most of what you’d install on a Linux system is available for free download, and not even Wal-Mart can undersell that.
Thanks for the comment Steve. I think normally I’d agree with you (it all comes down to more money), but in the case of Walmart I think it has less to do with “underselling” and more to do with “understanding.” I don’t think Walmart really understands how to position a unique item like a Linux based computer. Walmart shoppers just aren’t looking for something “that different.”
Thanks again for the comment.
Nonsense!
Microsoft’s ability to get their OS pre-installed on computer systems is just plain marketing success and is only a small part of their recipe for success.
They did something that many people overlook. They developed a framework in which applications have a similiar look and feel. Navigation throughout the majority of MS applications is standardized, reducing learning curve significantly. In addition, integration with other applications, even Non-MS has a standardized approach.
This above all, is what is important to the user community!
Just my two cents,
Regards,
Keith
Thanks for the comment Keith although I have to admit I’m not certain what you think is nonsense. With a long comment thread it starts to become difficult to figure how the comments relate to one another. I do agree, however, that getting the OS pre-installed on computer systems everywhere is a primary key to their success, but that definitely relates to my ease-of-use comment. Windows is easier to use than Linux because its pre-installed and you rarely have to monkey around with tracking down various drivers to get something to work correctly. Also, your comment about a framework for applications can also be seen as an ease-of-use point. Overall I don’t think our points are far off from one another.
Thanks for visiting and leaving a thoughtful comment.