Print - OS Market Share: Microsoft Stomps the Competition

   Despite a rash of gushing news stories about the successes of Apple Computer's Mac OS X (on the client) and Linux (on the server), Windows not only continues to dominate its rivals in both markets but also is growing in both markets. Market researchers at IDC say that various versions of the Windows desktop and server OSs currently dominate their respective markets and will continue to do so for at least the next 4 years. IDC credits Microsoft's volume-licensing programs for the company's ability to grow its share when it's already the dominant player.
   "As Microsoft has brought in [Windows XP and Windows 2000], there's been a lot of good reasons for customers to go out and buy brand new operating systems," IDC analyst Al Gillen said. "It's probably unrealistic to expect Microsoft to continue to drive the market as hard as it has been [doing]."
   According to the report, "Worldwide Client and Server Operating Environment Market Forecast and Analysis, 2002-2007," Windows desktop OS sales worldwide increased from 93.2 percent of the market in 2001 to 93.8 percent in 2002, accounting for more than $9.75 billion in sales. Various Mac OS versions stalled in second place, with just 2.9 percent of the market (and 2.2 percent of the revenues), although IDC noted that Apple will soon relinquish second place to Linux, which saw desktop growth in 2002 to 2.3 percent of the market. All told, 121 million client OSs shipped in 2002, IDC says; about 113 million were XP, 3.5 million were Mac OS, and 2.9 million were Linux.
   The server side of the equation also has an interesting breakdown. In 2002, Windows Server products owned 55.1 percent of the market, from a unit-shipment standpoint, up from 50.5 percent in 2001. Second-place Linux accounted for 23.1 percent of new shipments, up from 22.4 percent in 2001. Only Windows and Linux saw growth in 2002. Combined, all UNIX OS versions declined 8.9 percent year over year; Novell NetWare fell 12.4 percent.
   IDC also noted that the SCO Group lawsuit against Linux companies is having an effect. "Even if the litigation is resolved, the incident may forever put to rest the notion that Linux is 'free' software that can be deployed on any machine without any accountability for ownership and licensing," the IDC report reads. "This weakens a major area of differentiation between Linux and more commercialized operating environments." However, IDC believes that the SCO lawsuit will be resolved and that Linux use will grow through 2007. Windows Server will still dwarf Linux during that time period, however, the report says. "Microsoft generates about the same amount of OS revenue in 3 days as the entire Linux industry generates in 1 year," IDC notes.

"Microsoft's Windows Server products owned 55.1 percent of the market in 2002, from a unit shipment standpoint, up from 50.5 percent in 2001. Second-place Linux accounted for 23.1 percent of new shipments, up from 22.4 percent in 2001." Hmmm... Doing the math shows Microsoft's market share growing 5 times faster than LINUX's, doesn't it? With a growth *rate* that is more than double that of LINUX. And that is *before* the new SBS package gets much traction in the market and before the new Office System server stategy kicks in. So, at a minimum, '04 is likely to be more of the same. If Microsoft continues this level of growth, 5 share points per year, which is not really unreasonable, looking at the schedule of future server technology deployments (Yukon, longhorn, etc) they'll likely hit 70-plus percent share by 07, while LINUX gets to, at best, 25%. This suggests that the the server market is currently a 70-20-10 market that will likely over time evolve into an 80-20 market. This means LINUX has likely peaked in its market penetration and will start to give up significant market share to MS as MS continues to outpace LINUX growth rates in the near term. Of course, the Open Sourcerors will point to all the non-paid installations of "free" LINUX, but, as banks and other industries know all too-well, some customers you *don't* want to do business with, anyway. After all, non-paying customers really aren't customers at all, for a for-profit operation, no? Considering the state of the commercial UNIX business, SUN in particular, LINUX is looking to be a very good thing indeed for MS.

What percent of Microsoft's desktop 'stomp' is attributable to millions of corporate users like me who are provided with a Win2K/XP box and no other choice? I get around Win2K fine at the office, but much prefer running Jag and now Panther (in 2 weeks) to VPN and VNC into the office.

This report measures the unit shipments. In out company all linux server are shipped with Windows on it but reinstalled with linux. Aditionally some older windows servers are reinstalled with linux for intranet serving, file or print serving. So if you want to actually count the number of servers running with windows you need to decrease the Windows number and increase the linux number.

Paul, you seem to ignore the fact that, according to IDC, over 23% of customers preferred to pay for otherwise free Linux over buying a Windows OS. This also means that these numbers don't take free installations into account. Editor's note: Free installations aren't used in enterprises. --Paul

You could at least mention that the report only covered purchases of operating systems, and so does not indicate the overall popularity of Linux (or, for that matter, pirate copies of Windows). And while sales of Linux may not generate that much revenue, the value of Linux is to the users, not to the companies selling it. The "Linux industry" is every company that uses Linux: it is far, far larger than the commercial operating system market, with revenues to match.

Does your data include computers purchased from a manufacturer that bundles the OS with the computer purchase? I wonder because some of those computers may be counted as Windows, when in fact the user changes the OS to a different OS, for instance Linux. Just a thought...

"Editor's note: Free installations aren't used in enterprises. --Paul" What enterprise do you work in Paul? That statement is just plain false.

>> Editor's note: Free installations aren't used in enterprises. --Paul Sure they are. And how would you know this anyways? Are you in the field surveying companies? :) Editor's note: How do you know the reverse isn't true? I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I spend a large portion of my time, yes, discussing these topics with large companies. -- Paul

"Free installations aren't used in enterprises. --Paul" They are where I work. Guess it's not an "enterprise," it's just a "big company". Editor's note: There are examples of anything out there, such as companies that use the same copy of Windows on more than one machine. Those aren't counted either, but surely represent a larger customer base than people using downloaded copies of Linux. We can do fun things with unprovable statistics if we're bored enough. --Paul

"OS Market Share: Microsoft Stomps the Competition" There is no competition, and this especially true in the area of desktop systems. Because of the nature of the software industry and Microsoft's illegal (yes they are) and cut-throat OEM 'agreements' people have absolutely no choice in what they get when they buy a new computer. I await with interest what the EU will do about this, but they seem to have missed the point by focusing on Windows Media Player amongst other meaningless things. If these stupid and immature restrictions on OEMs, file formats, protocols and programming environments were not in place it would be interesting as to what people would choose and what great software we would have available. Given that there are countless surveys where people say that they hate their computers and are very frustrated by them, at home and at work, (of course virtually all of them will be running Windows) it would be very interesting to see what would happen if people really had choice. Interestingly, having these restrictions freed up would probably push the market on to new levels and new revenue streams. Microsoft would have competitors but the opportunities for making new revenue would be greater. Unfortunately, Microsoft seems very keen on flogging a long deceased horse. It is highly amusing that Paul seems to think that this adds up to success on Microsoft's part. "The server side of the equation also sees an interesting breakdown. Microsoft's Windows Server products owned 55.1 percent of the market in 2002, from a unit shipment standpoint, up from 50.5 percent in 2001." You can make several observations about this. It is for new servers only, so it does not take into account the current, existing situation in many companies. What about free software deployments and installations that you cannot necessarily track effectively? A lot of server builders, particularly those who are small or medium sized, build a server, install a free Linux distribution and support it themselves. This obviously DOES matter, as we will se below. "overall operating systems and subsystems market revenues grew by a surprising 4.3 per cent to $18.6 billion, led by a 12.4 per cent increase in revenues aboard the Windows platform." Strangely, this is for the whole OS market, not just for servers. Just why is that? Given that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market as a whole, thanks to desktops, they have intelligently used this as leverage. You've got to hand it to them :). How Microsoft must love Licensing 6.0 :). Not only can they screw more money out of an already saturated market they can now count every single 'subscription' sign-up as a Windows Server 2003 sale, whether they actually use it or not. This must be a massive plus. " Editor's note: Free installations aren't used in enterprises. --Paul" Oh yes they are :). Commercial Linux distributions are also based on free software. I have also pointed out that many server builders build a box, install a 'free' Linux distribution and support it themselves. You will see many companies that do this. The fact that you seem to have got a bit irritated when this issue was raised by Peter Olsen proves this point. "IDC also noted that the SCO suit against Linux companies is having an effect, ending the notion that Linux is "free" software. " This is where it gets very interesting, and it would probably have been best if Microsoft and IDC had shut up before this. They had already made their point, but amusingly for us they have decided to go on :). Firstly, Linux and other software will forever be 'free software', because of their licenses. That is irrevocable :). This is also the exact language that SCO itself has used continuously when, bizarrely, the issue of free software does not really affect what they are claiming. It has now become clear that Microsoft has offered SCO some very cushy arrangement to be a lamb-to-the-slaughter - sacrificing itself for Microsoft. This must be some deal :). If Microsoft and Windows have done so alarmingly well, why mention free software at all? Why feel the need to attack it? The concept of 'free software' obviously does matter otherwise it would not have been mentioned, and judging from actual servers running JUST on the internet, non-Microsoft and free software based platforms reign supreme. The middleware market is also very interesting. SAP, Sage, Oracle and others have realised they are on a hiding to nothing if they promote their products on Windows only. Every middleware vendor right down to the small ones is now producing software that now runs on Linux platforms, especially at the server end. Where are the 1,000 server deployments of Windows 2003? Where are the articles on SAP, Sage and others agressively getting behind and developing with .NET? Given that Sun and established Unix is losing out, especially in the financial services area, where are the articles on massive moves by financial companies to Windows-based servers? There aren't any because it isn't happening. Given the lack of Windows in upscale projects I would be inclined to worry if I was a Microsoft analyst. As an IT person who buys IT software and equipment I'm confused. If the situation is so good for Microsoft then why do I see articles like this: http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-5089341.html I haven't seen any articles like this with people promoting a big move to Windows. Why? Figures are certainly useful but they have to correllate with what is happening within the industry and have to be matched up by actual events and actual server deployments - not 'sales'. This is something that IDC has really failed to do. Although Microsoft has a good slice of the server cake, and rightly so, this report is another play right out of the Microsoft handbook. If things aren't quite going your way use your monopoly (licensing et al) to stretch the figures to the absolute limit, and convince people like mad that things are going your way. Whether these figures actually tally with peoples' 'conscious radar' as to what is actually happening, is an entirely different matter. Maybe we should come back in a year or two and see whether these marvellous figures that IDC have produced have actually materialized into something solid. That's if anyone remembers them :).

Two of you noted that "free installations aren't used in enterprises" and "non-paying customers really aren't customers at all". I don't think this is quite true. I deploy Windows and Linux servers all the time for the billion dollar enterprise that employs me as their peon. The trouble with billion dollar enterprises is that they try to save money like they're losing money. Since 2001 I have installed the downloadable version of Red Hat Linux exlusively on servers. We then purchase a support contract through a Red Hat partner. Considering Red Hat's business model is based on support rather than sales, this does make us their customer. In 2001 we deployed about 50% Linux and 50% Windows, but that's changed to about 70/30 because we've found the Linux support to be more valuable. The support consultants can more often get the server fixed with less downtime. In my opinion, that sort of thing will play a bigger role in future deployment than anything else. Microsoft needs to get their act in gear to get better support partners.

>Editor's note: How do you know the reverse isn't true? I'm >not sure what you do for a living, but I spend a large >portion of my time, yes, discussing these topics with >large companies. -- Paul Never claimed the opposite isn't true as well... I'm a Sys-Admin. I'm mostly disagreeing with your blanket statement. I can tell you categorically that a lot of the Linux installations out there are from freely downloaded copies. And these will never show up as "shipments" or be counted in all these studies. And sure, the opposite is true as well. Say, for an engineering lab to do automated testing, I can put 50 Linux systems out there, built from a free copy to do what I need to do. (and I have done this, just to give an example). I could not do it with Windows because we did not have the budget for 50 Win2k seats. And for the record, I am a Microsoft customer too. I support all the platforms. Windows, Linux, Solaris. Remember, almost all of us Linux users are also Microsoft customers. I think you guys forget this sometimes. How can we not be? Just thought it was silly to make such a general comment. I feel like I can speak with some credibility on this issue since this is what I see and do every day... Thanks. Editor's note: OK. I don't have the space or time to milk a topic as hard as its worth, so I sometimes have to cut to the chase. Certainly, there are probably examples of large businesses that use Linux downloads as the basis for enterprise servers. There are also pirated copies of Windows floating around, and we're not counting those either. From a statistical standpoint, large businesses tend to require systems that are supported. --Paul

I've added some more info. for your continuing articles on who's stomping whom. Microsoft just plain sucks! Most purchases for companies are either bought by or for dimwits.......oh well! International Data Corp. released the results of a study on the server operating system market. Not surprisingly, the server version of Windows came out on top for 2002, with 55.1% of new license shipments. The server version of Linux registered a 23.1% market share for the same period. IDC said this is about as good as it will get for Windows, though. An analyst for the firm predicted that Windows' server market share will likely top out in the neighborhood of 55%. Gartner wasn't much more chipper on the subject of Windows. CNET reported that the research firm will issue a report today that adds its voice to the chorus crying out about the dangers of worldwide reliance on Microsoft software. The Gartner report is expected to urge businesses to diversify their desktop software or get swept up in an inevitable "cascading failure" caused by an Internet worm or virus.

I imagine that some of this is true. As a small time technician to a small time town, there aren't a lot of servers to work on. And while I fix windows stations all the time, I then come back to my house, and work on my computer, which is running OS X Panther. I have no problems on my computer, but I am constantly fixing problems on Windows. The cost of the Windows OS is rather large and seems invalid compared to a free debian install and a commercial wine to run important common productivity applications. On one hand, I am amazed that people stick to what they know so much, that they suffer for it. On the other hand, I'm glad people use windows, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to fix.

Is it possible for anyone to say anything even vaguely positive about MS without the embittered minorities (OS wise, not ethnic wise) coming out of the wood work to slam them for this or that, or to point why they are "enlightened" for moving away from MS or their OS's? With exception to a home edition of Windows 98 I once had a million years ago - I have never had a problem with any MS software. I have been running XP since it came out and never had problems with it. It never crashed, not got infected, etc. I guess I got lucky with that one huge worm that came out (the realyl big one that even CNN was talking about) as I never got that. If you take of your sytesm, no matter who authored the code, then you dont have anything to worry about. But what is with all the whining? (nevermind, dont asnwer that) This guy is just stating facts. If you balance out the free downloads that are not being counted for linux, im sure it is more then balanced out by the amazing amount of pirating that MS deals with - so i think the data and Pual's statements are justified. Case and point - I my XP Pro and VSEA are two expensive peaces of software that I never paid a dime for. (SHHHH, a broke student needs a break, right?) Anyway, back into point. Microsfot has its faults, but then so does Apple and Sun. If their systems were such a large market share, you wiuld see the hackers finding ways to screw with those systems too. Are their things better about Linux? YES! Are their things better about Sun? YES! And are their things better about Windows? YES! Just get over it. So OS's have their place, others are just alternatives not meant for the massives. Be aware, i never drank the microsoft cool aid - but I also didnt drink the "MS IS AN EVIL EMPIRE" cool aide that a lot of other people have either. Sorry, I like my XP, my VS, my IE, and me Office - deal with it... Also, ONE last thing - why do Mac people ask me "do you like contributing to a monopoly(MS)"? when they buy about 90% of their software and 100% of their hardware from ONE company? Monopoly indeed. Anyway, to each his own...

im just studying microsoft for a project, does anyone have any comments about whether microsoft has currentley maintained its awesome competitive position environment in which the company operates?