That’s according to preliminary data released Sunday from a report by Net Applications which breaks down the Internet presence of Mac, Windows and Linux machines for the month of October. Microsoft’s hope that Windows 7 would slow the sure and steady pace of Apple’s growth appears to have been unfounded, at least at this early stage.

Windows still controls the lion’s share of the computer market, of course, with a huge 92.54 percent total share. But that’s down 0.25 percent from September. And yes,  Windows 7 did gain ground during the month, despite being officially available for purchase for only nine days at the end of October, but Net Applications explains that it held more than 2 percent going into the survey, owing to the use of pre-release versions like the beta and the release candidate.

Net Applications also points out, in a separate report, that much of Windows 7′s gain during October (it ended the month at 2.85 percent) came from XP’s market share, so it doesn’t represent the sort of “switch back” users Microsoft was looking for, only upgraders who skipped Vista in favor of the older, more stable OS.

Mac’s share jumped to 5.26 percent, up from 5.12 percent during the previous period. That’s a gain of 2.73 percent overall, which is a good number, but not nearly as high as the 5 percent gain Apple experienced in September. The slowdown might be due to a surge thanks to early adoption of Snow Leopard which is now coming to an end.

Note that Net Applications isn’t taking this data from sales numbers, but from visits to its client web sites, which add up to an impressive 160 million total. That’s a fairly large sample base. Apple 2.0 does point out that this particular methodology tends to favor devices like the iPhone, which account for more frequent web visits due to their ease of use.

The key to the future success of both companies will be converting the large Windows XP user base, which still accounts for 70 percent of all users. Both Apple and Microsoft will be looking to convert those users as they inevitably decide to upgrade. Holiday season numbers over the next few months should give a good indication of who will win out in the competition for those consumer dollars.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Windows 7 Forecast: Mostly Sunny, With a Chance of Showers
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce

One of the best reasons to get a new MacBook Pro, aside from the dazzling new screen on the 13-inch, and in spite of the SATA capping that’s apparently in place, is the extended battery life courtesy of the new built-in lithium polymer batteries. And by all accounts, even if you won’t necessarily reach Apple’s estimates, you will get more usage out of your notebook without having to connect to a power source. Or you’ll get more usage as long as you’re not running in Windows under Boot Camp, that is.

AnandTech’s Anand Shimpi has been running a MacBook Pro 15-inch through its paces over at his site, and while he was very impressed with the machine’s new battery overall, he noticed a considerable disparity between apparent power consumption under OS X, and under Vista. Nor was the difference marginal. Running OS X while only web browsing, Shimpi was able to coax a little over eight hours out of the notebook under OS X, and only six using Vista. That’s a two hour, or 25 percent difference.

Windows 7, which is supposed to make up for a lot of the mistakes Microsoft made with Vista, fared no better. The RC 1 version of the upcoming OS lasted only 5.48 hours using the same test conditions. Some of that can be ascribed to there not being final, optimized drivers for Windows 7 yet, but I doubt that accounts for the more than two-hour deficit it has compared with OS X running on the same hardware.

Windows supporters will no doubt chime in with claims that the Apple hardware is to blame, but Shimpi found some reason to believe that may not be the case. He spoke to a number of PC OEM manufacturers to see if they’d found a difference in battery life between OS X and Vista, and though none would officially go on record, some at least admitted to seeing a similar difference to the one Shimpi had found.

Since Apple doesn’t officially support any third-party hardware, it’ll be hard or even impossible to prove that OS X is, in fact, a more battery-efficient operating system, completely independent of any hardware considerations. Still, that’s one less reason to ever commit sacrilege by dual-booting your Apple notebook, which is bad news for Windows sales, no matter what the cause.

All you hackintosh experts out there, feel free to chime in with your own battery life tales, since your experience running OS X on non-standard hardware might be the closest thing we can get to a fair standard for comparison.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Windows 7 Forecast: Mostly Sunny, With a Chance of Showers
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce

This is not an Apple vs. Microsoft argument. It simply attempts to outline the difference in each one’s approach to OS sales, and why each uses the sales model it does. Rather than claim one is “right”, I believe each is right for the business model it supports. 

Where Apple may be handicapped in terms of perception is that Microsoft’s approach is well-known and understood. Microsoft could point out that ~95 percent of the planet probably “gets” their model. Apple, for all their recent success — so much so that many Apple fans forget they’re still a drop in the Atlantic in terms of global market share — employs a different approach that, when viewed through Microsoft’s, might seem a bit strange.

Microsoft: Which Windows Version Are You Running?

There are four different versions of Vista: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate. Each one is also split into “upgrade” and “full” versions. You make your pick, bring it home, and install it. Which do you choose? The decision of which of the four to purchase is up to the user, I only want to concentrate on the split between upgrade and full. 

The difference is straightforward. A full version installs on a PC with no proof required that a previous version of Windows is owned by the user. For an upgrade, however, such proof is required. The proof may be by installing over a previous version, or providing an installation disc, it doesn’t matter except to the extent that without proof the upgrade will not install; and you’re supposed to use the full version. 

(Let’s not get into all the ways you can skirt the “proof” process. Let’s all just pretend we’re honoring the spirit of the software agreement, OK?) 

Why does Microsoft do it this way? Their OS can run on thousands of variations of hardware platforms; it’s easier to verify you’re a valid user of a previous OS version. Further, this is the classic method of software sales; if there’s a new release, owners of older releases get a break in pricing. If you’ve never owned the product, you pay a higher price initially, but then enjoy upgrade prices from that time forward. Software has been sold like this for years and pretty much everyone understands this model.

In short, Microsoft requires a “full” version if you don’t own a previous one, and an “upgrade” version if you own a previous version, which the upgrade installation attempts to verify. 

Apple: Which Macintosh Do You Own?

Right off the bat, you see only one version of Leopard. That isn’t important, but what is important is that the one version is not split between “upgrade” and “full” versions. What’s up with that? 

The answer to that question is why Apple people claim that a boxed Leopard sold is an upgrade. It’s not an upgrade in the Microsoft sense as it makes no attempt to verify a previous version of Mac OS X. Rather, it verifies that you are in fact using a valid Apple Mac (i.e., Apple-labeled computer) and, once verified, lets you proceed. 

With Leopard verifying you have a valid Mac, there’s no need to verify the OS itself. Apple couldn’t care less at that point. You have a valid Mac and are therefore entitled to the Mac OS you just bought. So we see the huge difference between the Apple and Microsoft OS models, Microsoft must verify you own a prior version of Windows (doesn’t care about the hardware), whereas Apple must verify that you have a valid Mac. 

This explains why the boxed OS is thought of as an upgrade. Generally speaking, there is no reason a valid Mac owner would purchase a boxed OS unless it’s to upgrade. It can’t be new, because he got a full OS version with his Mac, and if he doesn’t have a valid Mac the installation will fail. (It’s this latter item that the cloners skirt, but this article isn’t about cloning, so let’s move on.)

By the way, the box OS allows full installs, too. Once the installer verifies your Mac you have several installation choices. 

Apple’s OS model is completely different from Microsoft’s. Ever wonder why Apple can sell “Leopard Ultimate” for only $129 (or less), and why they don’t need upgrade and full versions? Because they know you have a valid Mac, and as a company rely primarily on that hardware income. As for giving previous owners an upgrade price break, the “Ultimate” version at $129 is a great price. 

Summary: And The Winner Is… Both!

To think of Apple’s OS approach in Microsoft’s terms is a huge mistake; the business models are different. 

The reverse is also true. Apple’s model won’t fit into Microsoft’s world. Apple users like to make fun Vista’s versions, but when you don’t have the “luxury” of verifying a given piece of hardware, how else would you suggest Microsoft go? Developing an OS is expensive, Apple’s strategy allows them to simplify OS version and pricing because they rely primarily on hardware income. The disadvantage of this approach is that it’s tied to a Mac, hence the hucksters trying to skirt that issue. But when the issue is skirted, Apple’s model falls apart. 

Look at it this way: If Microsoft had to sell only the Ultimate version of Vista, with no hardware check, no differentiating between an upgrade and a full install, and for $129 (with other licensing options dropped accordingly), can you not imagine the drop in profitability? It would be harsh on their bottom line. That model makes little sense for an OS licensed for distribution widely on so many hardware platforms, at so many price points, by so many vendors. 

Meanwhile, if Apple had to continue selling just one version of Leopard, but could not verify a valid Mac was in use, then they’d be in the same boat as Microsoft above. In Apple’s case, OS revenues would likely increase, but not near enough to make up for the lack of corresponding hardware income upon which they rely. Apple is primarily a hardware vendor; tying the OS to the hardware makes that business model work, just as freeing the OS from a particular hardware vendor makes Microsoft’s work. 

I don’t believe either approach is necessarily better than the other, but it’s clear to me that either company being forced to used the other’s would be damaging.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast

The latest numbers from Net Applications’ Operating System stats are available, and they provide a nice epilogue to last month’s numbers. In October the Mac’s share was down, and Vista’s was up, prompting some to write about the apparent anomaly.

I countered that notion with my own writeup that showed both Windows and Mac have ups and downs in their numbers, so any single month isn’t particularly relevant. This is also true because Net Applications’ numbers themselves are really just a measure of OS usage hitting their network of web sites worldwide (~40,000 sites). It may be as accurate an OS measure as any, but one would still have to say it’s not conclusive. If anything, since some of those sites could be IE-only, it might even be skewed against any non-Microsoft OS. 

But the data is sure fun to play with.

Looking at November’s numbers for just Windows and Mac we see the Mac back up, wiping out the tiny “loss” of last month while adding over half a point. Meanwhile, while Vista is up again (~1.2 points), XP is down (~1.8 points). This is just additional confirmation of the point in my previous article: Vista’s gains are coming primarily at XP’s expense. Hardly unexpected. 

For even more fun, let’s take a look at Windows (all flavors) and Mac (Intel and PowerPC) over the last two years (in the graph below note that the Windows scale is in the left, and Mac scale is on the right): 

From 12/06 to 11/08 Windows loses 4.2 percent while Mac gains 3.2. Where did the other 1 percent of Windows losses go? Well, Linux picked up nearly half a point, and I assume the other half-point went to the ever-popular — and every statisticians’ best friend — category known as “Other.”

In short, the trends are these: 

• Vista is gaining share. 
• XP is losing share as fast (or faster) than Vista is gaining it. 
• Windows “net” is that it’s losing share. 
• Mac is gaining share. 

Obviously, these things go slowly. After all, the above graph took two years. It’s not like Microsoft should panic now that that they’ve dipped below 90 percent; nor should Apple crow that they’re up to nearly 9. That’s a 10 to 1 disparity; it’s pretty obvious which one is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. 

Still, the overall trends are not in Microsoft’s favor, and Apple’s move from 5.7 to 8.9 represents a 56 percent increase in two years. That’s impressive no matter how you look at it.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Operators’ Strategies for Connected Devices
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce

We knew we weren’t going to have to wait too long for Snow Leopard (10.6) to make its appearance on store shelves, but according to MacRumors, things just got a little more specific courtesy of a slide from a conference presentation.

Apple’s Director of Engineering for their Unix Tech branch, Jordan Hubbard, spoke at the Large Installation System Administration (LISA) conference last week, and his slide deck included the gem pictured here. His topic was the evolution of OS X from large servers to embedded platforms, which featured the release schedule pictured, with a fairly specific (compared to vague “one year” timelines talked about when Snow Leopard was announced at WDC 2008) Q1 2009 date of arrival.

If Snow Leopard does indeed arrive in the first quarter of next year, it will have beat the anticipated one year timeline by a considerable margin. Given that the upcoming version of OS X is primarily focused on delivering stability and performance improvements, rather than an extensive list of new features, it is quite possible that we could see it reach release in the first few months of 2009. Current Mac computers have a degree of untapped hardware potential that Snow Leopard will take full advantage of. A sped up timeline for the OS could then be an attempt to quell or distract from some very vocal early disappointments regarding Apple’s new notebooks, over things like the lack of FireWire on MacBooks, trackpad issues, and most recently, HDCP problems.

The earlier release might also be a direct response to Microsoft’s decision to aim for a 2009 release for Windows 7, which had previously been expected in 2010. Leopard’s release followed Vista’s by almost a year, which ended up in Apple netting a lot of dissatisfied Windows customers. This time around, Apple may be trying a different approach, trying to beat Windows 7 (essentially a Vista upgrade) out the gate with Snow Leopard (essentially a Leopard upgrade). It’ll work especially well to be first to market if Windows 7 disappoints, since it will give the impression that Cupertino can issue better improvements faster than their Redmond competitors.

Will you be first in line for Snow Leopard if it drops early next year, or do you plan on getting a little more mileage out of Leopard?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Windows 7 Forecast: Mostly Sunny, With a Chance of Showers
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce

Fortune’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt comments on the latest Internet market share numbers from Net Applications. Seems Vista got a bump in October while the Mac went down, and he’s curious as to why. 

It’s important to note that, as Philip himself explains, these numbers are an inexact measurement in the first place: 

The first thing to be said about these results is that Net Applications’ “market share” report doesn’t actually measure share of market as a percentage of revenue or unit sales. That’s the business Gartner and IDC are in.

Still, it’s interesting to look at the numbers to see what tentative conclusions could be drawn. 

The first thing I noticed when looking at Windows as a whole over the last year is that, while the trend is downward, there have been three points (Feb, Apr, and Jul) in addition to October where a gain was scored, so a monthly increase in and of itself is not out of the ordinary.

Further, Philip focuses more on Windows Vista, but even there the increase is not unusual. See the figures for Vista and XP for 2008 (rounded to the nearest half-percentge point):  

So Vista gained 7.5 points in nine months. The reason for this, I think, is obvious: Vista is getting sold on more and more PCs, so naturally its specific figures will show a steady rise. 

Meanwhile, however, XP shows a decrease at almost the same rate — 7 points — for those same nine months (other Windows losses came from older versions like Windows 98). This shows Vista’s licenses are coming primarily at the expense of XP and older Windows OSes, which is exactly what one should expect. 

As for the Mac, it shows similar traits as Windows. By that, I mean that it’s monthly numbers for the year show some losses along with the gains. Therefore, a drop for one month is not that unusual. The primary difference between the Mac and Windows charts is that the trend for Windows is down, while that for the Mac is up:

In my opinion, since October’s numbers don’t reveal anything particularly different than any other month’s, I think it’s fruitless to try to pick apart that one month. We’re just seeing the continuation of Vista gains (and XP losses) that we’ve been seeing all year. 

Still, if you feel there must be more to it than that, and need an alternate theory, I can postulate one as well as the next guy. For example, I could point out that late October was when Microsoft held their developers conference (PDC), with the subsequent Windows 7 blitz. That one event alone could have bumped Vista usage on the Internet as those users checked to see when their long national OS nightmare would be over.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

When Bill Gates mentioned in January, rather arbitrarily, that Windows 7 may ship “next year”, a general consensus was that a more reasonable delivery would be 2010. With that in mind, many expected it would then “slip” to 2011, as Microsoft’s deadlines are known to do.

I was, and have been, always of the opinion that Microsoft needed it sooner. I wasn’t alone in this thinking among some of the Microsoft observers at the time, though we felt so for different reasons. 

Now that many months have passed since then, while there are still those that believe Windows 7 (now its official name) is due for 2010, I still think we have a good chance of seeing it next year. Put simply, just as I thought earlier this year, Microsoft needs it as soon as possible. They need to get people believing Vista relief is coming relatively soon. 

And, make no mistake, Windows 7 is Microsoft’s Vista relief. The sooner they sweep Vista under the table as their current flagship OS, the better. 

No, this is not a Vista rant. In all fairness to Microsoft, at this point in time they’re primarily victims of Vista perception. If I bought a new PC today I’d get Vista on it. Today’s hardware runs it better than that of nearly two years ago, most driver support is there now, and initial egregious bugs have been stomped. Today it would appear Vista is better than XP in every way (except on low-end hardware like a netbook). 

But the damage is done. 

You only get one chance to make a first impression, and Vista’s initial reception and reaction, even from some of their staunchest supporters in the press, was abysmal. We’re not talking about a couple of bad reviews, or even running 50-50 for and against, we’re talking review after unfavorable review. For months. I was surprised at how few friends Microsoft had in the press those first six months (this was only 18-24 months ago, yet many people seem to have forgotten). 

Microsoft’s silence on the matter didn’t help much. They refused to discuss SP1, even getting to the point where Gates all but pleaded with people not to wait for it. By the time they grudgingly acknowledged its existence, there was a little too much bad blood in many quarters. It didn’t help that early comments about SP1 were that it wouldn’t make much difference in compatibility. Still, that was then, and this is now. 

So, fast forward to where we are now.

• Microsoft is plugging “Windows”, not “Vista”.
• Balmer is claiming that Windows 7 will be Vista, only better.
• They’ve pulled the Mail, Movie Maker, and other “digital lifestyle” apps from Windows 7. This will allow them to deliver the OS as soon as they need to (no timing issues with the rest of the Windows Live suite, which is pursuing a separate delivery path and is in beta).

Frankly, I think these are all sensible and smart moves on MS’s part. The Windows Live suite (which I’m playing with on my XP Pro virtual machine) looks like it will be nice, though it’s a little rough right now, and their Folder Share syncing looks pretty cool (and is free, and works on PCs and Macs). Live Mess I’m less impressed with.

Removing these apps from the OS will allow MS’s OS team to focus on just the OS (which they need to do) while allowing the digital lifestyle apps to be delivered as necessary since they won’t be tied to the actions of the OS team. Sure, this is the same as Apple’s approach with Mac OS X and iLife, but it makes a lot of sense and is smart for MS to go down that path as well.

With the burden of the lifestyle apps lifted, and the expectation set that Windows 7 won’t be some sort of life-changing thing (essentially, it’ll be Vista “fixed”, no matter that in its current incarnation Vista no longer needs as much fixing), I think MS pushing it out the door next year is very possible. Personally, I think it should be a definite and primary Microsoft goal. They need it.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Windows 7 Forecast: Mostly Sunny, With a Chance of Showers
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft

It is very customizable with:

• Over 90 icons
• Dock
• WiFi icon
• Boot and restore images
• Sliders
• Edge icon
• Vista login/logoff (unlock/lock) sound scheme

You can download it through installer and it is even available for the iPod Touch as well. Alternatively, you can download it here. VistaPerfection 2.0 is free but donations are happily accepted.

Even though I am happy with Mac OS X, Vista does look a lot better than XP, and almost looks at home on the iPhone ;).

[Via Just Another iPhone Blog]

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

• Vista is a failure. I can’t deny it and sad to say it, but it sucks. I’ve tried to like it and give it a shot, but it doesn’t work. For those of you who could righfully disclaim me as a so-called Apple fanboy, I’d like to remind you that during the day I do .Net programming. And most of the time I get it done on a Mac. Touche.
• Linux, well I hope you figure out that people outside of the IT sector don’t give crap about their computers or even want to see a crash detailing what happened during kernel traps or memory faults. Not saying your efforts are fruitless, but if you want to be a successful distribution, break free from branding as another Linux distribution. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a consumer say ‘Isn’t linux for people who understand computers?’. Figure out how to do drag-n-drop software installations and the Linux community might get a better following. Then figure out how to make desktop applications not crash so frequently. I have ran everything from straight Darwin, to FreeBSD, to Ubuntu 8 and one thing has always come back when attempting Linux as my desktop system. Consumers are not interested in having an IT guy as a friend. Shocking, I know.

So who’s left in the crowd? Surprise surprise, do any of you seriously think this wasn’t easily figured out 5 years ago? I wasn’t surprised to be honest. Many of us grew up using Apple computers in schools. We miss having stuff that just worked. We grew up in an era of believing in seamlessness over configuration. We’re tired of configuring when DVD players play movies and microwave cook food without a college degree. Computers are machines; they service a purpose as utilitarian in modern day life as speaking to each other. They must work just as well as our own air passes over our vocal cords in a stream of language interpreted at the other end of a sound wave. I don’t see any other platform doing it as well as the 1-2-3 of Apple, Google, and the Internet.

Which brings me back to today. 10.6 is what I’m more excited about than any other iPhone App demo or glanced over news release in the last 48 hours. I wrote peviously how this flurry of new features came at some cost to Apple engineers. I’ve been in the situation were the code that works isn’t necessarily the best way to do it. Sadly, more times than I can even recollect. So says Fake Steve:

“Brokenhearted Apple watchers wasted no time in bemoaning all the missing features that remain unaddressed.” That’s what you wrote. Well, of course they bemoaned. I told you yesterday they would do that. They always do. You know why? Because they have no idea how products are made or how software is written. Because they know nothing — nothing — about technology. They think our headquarters in Cupertino is some kind of Willy Wonka chocolate factory and I’m Mr. Wonka himself and all I have to do is snap my fingers and dream up some new features (or just make a list based on fanboy email) and that’s it — just like that, the miracle products are brought to life.

Which only highlights that I’m honored and appreciative that I see Apple (and as a former employee wondering which direction this push came from) is pausing to go back and just spend time rethinking, polishing, and improving what is already great but not all the way 99% perfect. In fairness and my love for software, I hope to see Microsoft just do the same damn thing. We need an era in tech were we can all say, you know what, the Internet is fine but we could go back and just make what we have work better. Perhaps we already have, it just took an event like WWDC to really make it apparent that great features might sell, but broken features cost more in support and bad press.

The only thing I’m more interested in with the review of code is how Apple handles charging (or even better NOT charging) for this new release of OS X. They’ve spent a few years now dinging us for $129 bucks for new features, but are we do for a freebie when Apple could certainly afford to do so? It’s certain that 10.7 is going to have more features than we’ll be able to comprehend in a single web page.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast

The Apple nay-sayers of today offer what they think is a solid argument against the Apple consumer; that Apple’s “game” is solely based on good looks alone and, as such, Apple consumers are nothing more then superficial ego-consumers who buy the product solely for social value. Trend, it would seem, is the buying power for Apple.

Now, before judgment is cast upon my soul, hear me out and see where I’m going with this. First, as a complete Apple fan boy you would think I fall into this argument as well. I, just as any other Apple consumer, may be attracted first by a product’s look, feel, and possible “trend” status. Ultimately however, it’s more than that. Steve Jobs’ goal has always been to meld form with function, and that’s where the meat balances the potatoes. We as consumers can appreciate a beautiful-looking piece of technology, but what is more important is the utility we receive from it. Therefore, arguably, the user experience is the sole foundation for a products success.

To get a better idea of what I mean, let’s take a look at three “competing” products. We’ll base this solely on the actual user experience, operating systems alone.

• Form and Function equal – Leopard
• Form but no function – Windows Vista
• Function but no form – Linux

Function but no form

Let’s go from the bottom up. Linux provides a secure foundation for developers to continue building upon. Just as the Linux community grows, the operating system itself seems organic, and grows with them. An open-source operating system, completely free to use, yet has never become mainstream. Why is that? Could it be due to the lack of form? Maybe by design Linux looks and feels more complicated; perhaps its role as a “developer tool” makes basic users quiver in fear. Whatever the reason, Linux never had the break that OSX has had since its onset.

Form but no function

I hope many will agree that, while Vista is one beautiful piece of glass, it’s a hollow space past the surface. Its innumerable new, eye-catching features are tantalizing, but on a practical scale, it shows little variation from the preceding XP. Coincidentally, like most beauty in this world, it seems to come with a price: either your sanity, or your RAM. It begs the question, why would users put up with such a bad relationship? Naturally, the operating system’s open quality led to its massive globalization, but at what further cost? Interoperability was what seemed to hold Microsoft together, but now with more customization available and the growing abilities of Web 2.0 sharing and creating, it seems more relevant now than ever to rethink what the true balance of form and function is.

Form and Function equal

The key to Apple’s success is their ability to balance function and form. Never will a device hyperextend itself at the risk of failing. Only the most secure features are added slowly into newer upgrades. The jump from Tiger to Leopard alone reflects this. Instead of recreating a completely new operating system that requires massive hardware upgrades, or so many new features that the system itself feels completely unique and unfamiliar, we see a simple system that reflects characteristics of its ancestors. A few features, here, a few features there, and you’re still secure in your space.

So judge us as you will, but remember, that in a world of trend, somethings are popular for a reason.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: The Future of Netbooks!
• Windows 7 Forecast: Mostly Sunny, With a Chance of Showers
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era