According to market researcher IDC, Windows will continue to dominate the desktop market and lead in the server arena for the foreseeable future. Indeed, Windows NT Workstation revenue grew by $1.6 billion in 1999, besting the overall growth of the market, which was $1.53 billion. More tellingly, enthusiasm for Linux hasn't translated into actual dollars spent: Linux commanded only $36.9 million of 1999's desktop market.

"Undoubtedly, there is a lot of excitement surrounding Linux, but so far this technology has failed to ignite a broad revolution against the Microsoft-dominated desktop world," said Al Gillen, IDC's system software research manager. "Revenues from sales of Linux remain a single droplet compared with the sea of cash that the Windows products generate." IDC predicts that Linux desktop usage will nearly triple between now and 2004, but that the growth will be enough to shave only a percentage point or two off Windows' market share.

According to IDC, Windows won't begin to relinquish its hold on the desktop market until 2005 at the earliest. Instead, Windows versions will share the spotlight, with Windows 2000 taking the lead as early as this year. Windows' 1999 desktop market share was 87 percent; that figure is expected to drop only 2 percent by 2004. Most of that loss will be to new desktop devices, not to other PC OSs.

The research company doesn't expect the Mac OS, which saw a slight market share increase because of the iMac's popularity in 1999, to gain much ground because of the decade-long downturn preceding that product. Also, iMac sales in 2000 are already off dramatically compared with 1999. "Apple probably won't be able to make up all the ground it lost in the past decade," Gillen said.

In the server market, Linux overtook Novell NetWare for the number-two position behind Win2K and NT. In 1999, 1.3 million Linux servers were in use, and IDC expects that figure to reach 4.7 million in 2004— a growth rate that outpaces the rest of the server market's expected 23 percent rate. However, the outlook for Linux isn't as rosy as it sounds: Linux revenues will grow a barely perceptible 1 percent during the same period. The OS garnered only $67 million in 1999 and can expect to bring in $85 million by 2004. The problem, of course, is that Linux often runs on individuals' and small companies' low-cost machines; because users can get Linux free over the Internet, most users don't pay for the OS. Even Red Hat Software, which sells Linux and is one of its biggest proponents, admits that it makes more than two-thirds of its revenues, which totaled $42 million in fiscal 2000, from support and services.

"From a revenue perspective, Linux is nothing more than a speck of sand on an ocean beach," said Dan Kusnetzky, vice president of IDC's system software. "Our research indicates the total market for Linux OS software in 1999 was ... about the same amount of revenue that Microsoft's operating systems' business generated by noon on the third working day of January 1999."

End of Article




You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.

Reader Comments

<br><i>Linux isn't really "free." Like Windows machines, Linux boxes need to be installed, configured, managed, and supported by knowledgeable people. You can make the case that because of Linux's UNIX heritage, a Linux installation demands even more know-how than a Windows installation. Because most Linux installations today are small and occur with hobbyists and small businesses, in many cases you can't fairly compare Linux usage with Windows usage. <br> As for the seemingly exclusive statements that Linux growth will outpace the rest of the industry but that the outlook for Linux isn't as rosy, remember that high growth is easy for any nascent market. But if most of the growth in the Linux market comes from only hobbyists and small-business installations, the OS doesn't have much of a future. <br> Linux is a very capable OS that can and will compete with Windows in a variety of markets. Anyone would be unwise to discount the impact of this open-source phenomenon.<br> --Paul Thurrott</i>

Paul Thurrott

<br><br>I take issue with Paul Thurrott's News Analysis: "Windows Dominance to Continue" (November 2000). The author cites the IDC findings on market share for Windows and other OSs and states that although the growth rate for Linux servers outpaces the rest of the server market, the outlook for Linux isn't as rosy as it sounds. I run both Windows 2000 Server and Win2K Professional in my environment, and I also run an Apache Web server on a Red Hat Linux box. <br> The IDC report looks at only the revenues from--not the usage of--OS products. Using revenue to compare Windows with other OSs presents a short-sighted and unrealistic view of the situation. I agree that Microsoft holds the lion's share of the market now and will probably continue to do so for quite some time; however, Microsoft will maintain its revenue dominance longer than it will hold the top spot of most-used OSs because you can get Linux for free.<br> Although I'll probably stick with Microsoft OSs because of the wide range of support available, price certainly plays a part in deciding which OS to roll out. You can pay more than $100 for one Win2K Pro license, or you can roll out an entire fleet of Linux machines for free--or at most for the cost of one boxed product (approximately $80). Do Win2K's added security and other features support the price point? Please think about these issues when you quote reports in articles. IT management needs to know that the OS market is changing.<br>

Jeremy Schultz

 
 

ADS BY GOOGLE