Analyst IDC just released its latest survey of operating system sales and market share. In obvious news, Microsoft Windows continues to dominate the desktop. Microsoft has also made huge gains on the server side. The survey does not account for free Linux installs, only paid versions, so the Windows vs. Linux sales figures are only useful to see who’s making more money, however. Both Windows and Linux on the server side are growing at the expense of commercial Unix and older OSes like OS/2 that are being phased out.
I can’t believe Linux will beat Mac on the desktop by 2004.
is an older OS used on servers other than OS/2 but not Unix..?! Can’t think of any from the top of my head, though this isn’t my profession either…
“Microsoft has also made huge gains on the server side” ?!?
lol… gains yes, “huge”? no.
A decent analysis of the report is available at http://theregister.co.uk/content/61/33292.html .
On the subject of Mac and Linux desktops, it doesn’t seem that a lot of the people doubting that Linux will surpass Mac relatively soon consider Asian and 3rd world contries. Low priced desktops are becoming affordable for them with Linux (or a “pirated” OS from M$), but the prices of Macs are still out of reach. Don’t get me wrong, I dig Macs, and OS X, but in a market where price is *everything* they are not really even a choice. I believe it is these computers that will drive the percentage of Linux on the desktop past Apple’s percentage.
well, Iguess that means that the markt for quality computers is shrinking then, and yes, I am also talking about the dells and IBMs, and Compaqs. so, a $1200 machine is no longer able to compete with a cheap junk pot of a machine?
is an older OS used on servers other than OS/2 but not Unix..?! Can’t think of any from the top of my head, though this isn’t my profession either…
Most notably Netware. Also, VMS or Banyan Vines.
2.8 percent of paid-for clients! Thats really quite good considering the number of free downloaded copies there must be out there.
And add to that 23.1 percent of paid-for server licenses, and its obvious that Linux is a mainstream choice these days. Im sure we will still see a few more miss-informed editorials about wether Linux is “ready”, but the fact is that ready or not, its here.
I can see why IDG chose not to include free installs of Linux, because of how wildly inaccurate those reported numbers would be. However, that makes you wonder exactly how big the Linux desktop market really is. First, the total monetary amount is probably being low-balled. I haven’t bought Gentoo boxed copies, but I’ve donated to the project. I know a lot of Debian users who do the same thing. Second, the survey probably low-balls the total amount of installed systems. Our single RedHat boxed set has made its way to 4 or 5 machines. My roommate has a RedHat install downloaded from ISO, and so do a lot of other people at our school who need a Linux machine for their CS projects. All told, I’d guess that there are 2 or 3 times as many desktop Linux installs than are being reported by shipped copies alone.
All told, I’d guess that there are 2 or 3 times as many desktop Linux installs than are being reported by shipped copies alone.
I’d rather say 10 times more. It is still quite unusual to actually buy a license for a Linux desktop distribution.
I can see why IDG chose not to include free installs of Linux, because of how wildly inaccurate those reported numbers would be.
I just want to toss out some food for thought:
1. In every office that I have worked, employees have copied Windows installation CDs or brought them home to install. These are not reported.
2. In every office that I have worked, we have used an MSDN subscription to install servers and workstations. These are not reported.
How do these unreported usage of Windows stack against the unreported usage of Linux?
Windows made huge inroads into the corporate world by encouraging office users to install illegal copies at home, eventually becoming Windows zealots and preaching it in the office. That is part of the cause of OS/2’s demise.
Now Windows is becoming immune to illegal copies, and Linux is becoming an operating system alternative for home usage from office workers.
If history repeats itself, Linux will take the lion’s share of the desktop and server in 2 years, leaving Windows as a legacy operating system like OS/2. Microsoft’s refusal to remember its roots will mean that Linux will end up the dominant operating system.
BTW, it’s not all about money. When NT surpassed OS/2 as server (again according to IDC), IBM made $80 billion whereas Microsoft made $9 billion. If it was about money, OS/2 would be the dominant operating system.
“1. In every office that I have worked, employees have copied Windows installation CDs or brought them home to install. These are not reported.
2. In every office that I have worked, we have used an MSDN subscription to install servers and workstations. These are not reported.”
In both cases you describe here they would not be reported as the installs would be illegal anyway, subjecting the company you work for to possible prosecution for piracy. Each installation of Windows OS must be licensed, and the servers from the MSDN subscription can only be used for development and can not be placed into a production environment per the EULA for the products. Linux on the other hand can be installed freely, on as many machines as you like, with no extra costs incurred or implied, with no fear of prosecution.
So they do not stack at all since they are not legally installed for use, IMHO.
Regards
“a $1200 machine is no longer able to compete with a cheap junk pot of a machine?”
If you don’t spend $1200, it’s a junkpot??? Or maybe the truth is you could easily get by on a machine at half or 3/4 of that cost, but you just like expensive toys, hmmm? And you were speaking of fiscal responsibility. Really now…
it means that you are CHEAP. I AM fiscaly responsable and that alows me to BUY GOOD MACHINES.
What I can say is that you don’t need to spend a lot to make good workstation machines, specially if you don’t want to pay the extra for OS and Office suite (I’m suposing you are goind to use Open Source).
However, doing that means that you are going to spend a lot of time in the installing and configuration process, and time IS money.
It’s totally different in the server side, where is hard to compete in price with HPQ, Dell and IBM. Even more if you consider the installing and configuration.
“1. In every office that I have worked, employees have copied Windows installation CDs or brought them home to install. These are not reported.”
The employees machine at home was probably sold with some Windows version originally. So it is reported for sure.
(and perhaps the office servers too).
The theregister story is quite good.
http://theregister.co.uk/content/61/33292.html
It is indeed hard to estimate the free linux installs.
The figures are thus not correct.
CNET.COM did not even mention the “free” linux install problem. Not good.
Regards,
How many Windows computers have been gutted of its OS, and have had Linux installed, but the count will go to Windows, and not Linux.
If you have a chance to see the original article it states for Linux, and Maco OS is COE (client operating environment) which means that basically the entire shop is running on it.
So in reality if I have a shop that is mostly Windows, and happen to have 20 Powermac G5s they won’t count them.
So by actually looking at the words, and seeing the unfair gist they context it to THE ARTICLE IS COMPLETE FUD…. And I do mean enough FUD to make Elmer J., happy.
If I’m wrong, PROVE IT.
Well, there are still a certain number of mainframes being shipped with proprietary OSes. Unisys still has at least two (the old Sperry UNIVAC OS1100/OS2200 runs on the Clearpath IX line, and the old Burroughs MCP still runs on the Clearpath NX line), and IBM still has its own set of mainframe software (still called OS/390?).
Others have mentioned VMS (probably in the form of OpenVMS nowadays?), Novell, etc.
Maybe it will not in USA, but in other countries, like Brazil, for example, is more common than MacOS. Here, for example, You can find thousands of linux desktops and there are less than two hundreds of MacOS. Off course, I’m talking about corporate desktops. Ordinary home users don’t use linux here.
One trick that IDC played on the corporate world was announcing that Windows NT had broken the 3,000,000 mark. It turned out that Microsoft had only licensed 300,000 but had stuffed the distribution channels with 3,000,000 copies (read: 2,700,000 unsold copies). IDC based its stats on the distribution channels, not the licenses sold. This resulted in a self-fullfilling prophesy – the corporporate world believed that it must be okay to purchase Windows NT because it “sold” that many copies.
Is IDC (again) claiming the percentages by including unsold copies in the distribution channels, MSDN subscriptions, and pirated copies (such as they had done in the past with Windows 95)?
Drill Sgt points out: they do not stack at all since they are not legally installed for use, IMHO.
Legality was not at issue here. Microsoft had encouraged piracy because it helped with the numbers. Now that the numbers have helped sell product, they are at war with the piracy.
Lars points out: The employees machine at home was probably sold with some Windows version originally. So it is reported for sure.
When Windows 95 came out, most home PCs were running DOS.
“Drill Sgt points out: they do not stack at all since they are not legally installed for use, IMHO.
Legality was not at issue here. Microsoft had encouraged piracy because it helped with the numbers. Now that the numbers have helped sell product, they are at war with the piracy.”
I must have missed that era in computing. I worked for a company that was audited for usage with Windows 95 when it was new. That company was charged with piracy then and forced to pay fees for each copy of windows that was installed on more then one machine. I guess I am wondering when MS encouraged piracy since they have been auditing forever?
I am not sure I understand the fixation on hardware here. It has been proven time and time again that up front costs of hardware are somewhere near 20% of the cost of running an IT organization where things like user support, software deployment, password management, etc… account for almost 80%.
With that being said, I don’t get why everyone has a problem with Mac OS X? It provides pretty much the same capability on the desktop as Linux in terms of security and stability (its based on *NIX too-almost asll Linux software runs on it, and it is immune to windows woms), yet it is much easier to install and apple uses its strengths in UI design to provide easy to use setup and management tools. Heck, apple even ships an LDAP plugin that is pre configured to work with most of its competitors directory services systems (AD, Novell, NIS, etc…).
I guess what I am saying is, you have already made the decision that you don’t care about Win32 apps. You already made the decision that you need to retrain or get new admins (MCSEs need new or different skills to admin *NIX).
Why spend all this time and money cooking up your own home-brew system to set up and deploy your desktops based on Linux adding to the 80%, when you can spend a slight little more up front on hardware and get OS X systems that will save you money in the long run in user support, software support, etc… and subtracting from that 80%?
Being fiscally responsibly means making every dollar count, quite the opposite of going shopping for the pricey goods that you feel you deserve cause you’re so special or whatever … since you don’t have a job, you wouldn’t understand that..it’s really easy to spend HER money, isn’t it?