- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,071
- Reaction score
- 332
- Points
- 83
With all due respect, fleurya, I think it's more complicated than that.
Windows has a hold on the market, denying that is not living in the real world. If you came up with a car that ran on, say, processed chicken bones instead of gasoline it might be a great idea and a better mousetrap. But the entire world is set up to feed cars gasoline. The logistical and infrastructure changes necessary to support a FCBFV (Fleurya Chicken Bone Fueled Vehicle) fleet would be enough to kill your great new invention.
I work for a fairly small company, probably about 200 employees. I'd guess there are 100 or so Windows machines company-wide. Our database is set up in Windows. All of our office applications are in Windows. Our email system, servers, etc. are all Windows. It doesn't matter whether Mac is better or Linux or anything else ... the cost on a corporate level to migrate to a new OS company-wide is not worth it. If our little company doesn't want to spend that kind of money, I can't imagine GM or Smith-Barney or Bristol-Myers Squibb doing it.
The established corporate base is what keeps MS on top in the OS world. The move by Apple to use Intel chips and develop ways to integrate Win applications into OS X seamlessly (eventually, hopefully) had to be motivated primarily by this fact. Giving corporations a reasonable cross-platform upgrade path is the only way Macs will ever penetrate the business market in a major way.
Windows has a hold on the market, denying that is not living in the real world. If you came up with a car that ran on, say, processed chicken bones instead of gasoline it might be a great idea and a better mousetrap. But the entire world is set up to feed cars gasoline. The logistical and infrastructure changes necessary to support a FCBFV (Fleurya Chicken Bone Fueled Vehicle) fleet would be enough to kill your great new invention.
I work for a fairly small company, probably about 200 employees. I'd guess there are 100 or so Windows machines company-wide. Our database is set up in Windows. All of our office applications are in Windows. Our email system, servers, etc. are all Windows. It doesn't matter whether Mac is better or Linux or anything else ... the cost on a corporate level to migrate to a new OS company-wide is not worth it. If our little company doesn't want to spend that kind of money, I can't imagine GM or Smith-Barney or Bristol-Myers Squibb doing it.
The established corporate base is what keeps MS on top in the OS world. The move by Apple to use Intel chips and develop ways to integrate Win applications into OS X seamlessly (eventually, hopefully) had to be motivated primarily by this fact. Giving corporations a reasonable cross-platform upgrade path is the only way Macs will ever penetrate the business market in a major way.