A test conducted by International Data Corp. shows Windows 95 users were able to complete a series of business computing tasks 19% faster than Mac users and 50% faster than OS/2 users. The tasks included managing and printing local and networked files, managing documents and software programs, checking system resources, creating shortcuts and customizing the desktop. (Investor's Business Daily 27 Nov 95 A6)
Apple's Response
It was a disappointment when Apple was briefed a couple of weeks ago on a new computer usage study sponsored by Microsoft. It's basically a flawed imitation of the Arthur D. Little productivity study that was sponsored by Apple a couple of years ago.
This study has some serious technical and methodological flaws and in our professional opinion was not implemented well. We wanted to share our concerns about the study.
About two years ago, Apple sponsored a study in which Arthur D. Little tested the productivity of Windows 3 and Macintosh users performing 24 common tasks, in ten categories, on their computers. The study was designed to document something that virtually all industry analysts knew was true but couldn't quantify: That people using Macs could do work faster and better.
Microsoft's study appears to partially duplicate seven of the ten categories, and adds three new ones (we say "partially" because Microsoft changed many of the individual tests, and because we can't get access to all the details of the testing; they're a secret). The study also tests OS/2 in addition to Mac and Windows 95. Microsoft claims its tests show that Windows 95 users are 19% faster than Mac users, and somewhat more accurate in their work.
That's the headline I expect you to hear when the study is released. What they won't tell you is that the methodology of the tests is severely flawed and appears to contain some serious biases. You should insist on reading their full report very carefully.
We feel that the methodology of the tests was severely flawed and there appear to have been some serious biases. Here are some examples:
For the record, Apple believes that the basic usability of Windows 95 does come closer to a Mac than Windows 3.1 did. We think there are still some major usability advantages in the Mac, though -- things like built-in scripting and a much easier to use file system. With the next version of the Mac OS, we expect to widen that lead. But the most important point is that the industry is moving beyond basic ease of use to other issues, such as the ease of working with multimedia and the Internet. Those are the areas in which today's Macs really shine. And they're not even addressed by this study.
Mac Platform Marketing
Question: Outperformed doing what?
This study was conducted, by IDC, at the request of Microsoft and was
fully funded and directed by Microsoft. IBM has attempted to review the
study, in more detail, but has been denied access to the actual test. All
descriptions of tasks were written by Microsoft. IDC did read, over the
phone, descriptions of the tasks users were asked to perform.
Surprisingly, there were no multitasking questions, no measuring of one's
ability to access the Internet through popular service providers, update
a spreadsheet, or fax and file documents. The study apparently was based
on an Apple study done three years ago. Not very representative of
today's environment and not designed to take advantage of true 32 bit
technology. Had the study really examined how many steps it takes to
accomplish specific tasks using Windows applications versus doing the
same tasks using OS/2 Warp applications, the study might have shown that
OS/2 Warp's drag and drop interface saves the users many steps when
faxing, reaching a favorite web page, or launching an application from
the toolbar.
Question: How was the study conducted?
Microsoft indicates that the study measured speed and accuracy on a
variety of tasks The firm who executed the tests, Andre Associates, did
group evaluation with one timer to several participants. It is not clear
to us that the evaluators knew what the pass/fail criteria was. There
were no intervention protocols which means that if a person was on the
wrong track they could stay there until they failed. One failure on a sub
task could cause the entire task family to be counted as a failure. A
precarious position for an OS/2 user since they did not have the same
starting point as a Windows user, yet they were required to be a user of
Microsoft applications. There was no customization of the desktop to
allow for migration from the workplace shell. Thus, IBM has no way of
knowing whether or not the systems were set up to allow exploitation of
productivity enhancing features like the desktop toolbar to allow
single-click application launching and task switching, Fast Boot for
quick loading of Windows applications, or even launching of Windows
applications directly from the Workplace Shell desktop. Since the study
dictates the use of mostly Microsoft applications, Microsoft controlled
how the applications were installed and presented to the user on each
platform. Unless Microsoft went back to the machines to ensure that the
Windows applications had been properly migrated to the OS/2 desktop and
that they had been setup properly on the desktop toolbar - a set of
operations that takes only seconds to do on OS/2 and is well documented -
then it is likely that many users simply used Program Manager to launch
the Office applications rather than exploiting the user interface
advantages of OS/2 Warp.
Of interesting note also, Microsoft monitored the testing by having staff
members on hand to answer questions. We have no way of knowing what
"helpful hints" they may have given the OS/2 testers.
Question: Who were the test subjects?
The study indicated that IDC had difficulty finding OS/2 users with
networking experience. Microsoft provided a list of OS/2 users to IDC.
Microsoft's directive was that they only wanted to evaluate OS/2 users
with Netware experience. IDC screened their lists and eliminated all OS/2
users with LAN Server experience. This eliminated a very substantial
portion of the OS/2 user base from which to draw since many OS/2
installations rely on IBM LAN Server as their server of choice along with
its intuitive drag and drop based user interface consistent with the rest
of OS/2. Limiting the tests to OS/2 users who primarily rely on Windows
applications and Netware servers, while NOT limiting the selection of
Windows or Apple users to those with Netware but also including Windows
users with Windows NT as a server or Apple users with AppleTalk, puts
OS/2 at a marked disadvantage. Users of OS/2 Warp Connect peer functions
would have been excluded while users of peer functions between Windows 95
and Windows NT as a server would not have been. Selection of the Windows
95 users from the Preview Program user base virtually guaranteed
Microsoft a fairly advanced user base - those wishing to participate in a
beta program as an early adopter - giving them an advantage neither IBM
nor Apple were provided in the tests.
It seems clear that Microsoft carefully crafted this study to portray
Windows in the best light.
We believe, as Apple has stated, that the study is flawed and unfair. The
tests performed have been biased towards a Microsoft user and therefore
would result in an improved performance for their operating system.
This study simply lacks credibility.
Walter W. Casey Director of Marketing Personal Software Products Division
International Business Machines Corporation
REDMOND, Wash. - In a test aimed at measuring the productivity of personal computer users in terms of speed and accuracy on a variety of common tasks, International Data Corp. (IDC) found that users of the Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 95 operating system outperformed Macintosh(R) and OS/2(R) users. Highlights of the study include the following:
"The IDC test indicates that users of Windows 95 completed common tasks in 19 percent less time than Mac users, and with greater overall accuracy," said David Card, author of the report and director of PC software research at IDC.
In July, IDC teamed with consulting firm Andre' Associates of Oakland, Calif., to execute a series of tests and focus groups for Microsoft that measure user productivity under different operating systems. The tests compared 54 Windows 95 Preview Program participants, 55 Mac operating system users and 52 OS/2 users with comparable skills on identical business-computing tasks and on comparably configured systems. To IDC's knowledge, this was the largest such study ever undertaken.
The tests comprised 10 families of tasks covering local and networked file management and printing, document and application management, checking system resources, creating an alias or shortcut, and customizing the desktop. The test also required the users to attach an external CD-ROM drive.
The study's intent was to evaluate the productivity of users of the operating system itself, rather than to measure application usage. The minimal interaction with applications was controlled through identical applications in each environment. Likewise, this test was designed to measure a mix of everyday tasks, such as manipulating files, as well as things business users do less frequently. IDC weighted all task groups equally.
This is, in my opinion, typical of the Microsoft marketing machine. In nearly every review of Windows 95 it was acknowledged that, while better than Windows 3.11, Windows 95 was still not as good as the Macintosh. They are now trying to obfuscate that fact with carefully doctored studies.
Look at this claim in particular:
Note that they are careful to distinguish the group of "users of Windows 95 who completed eight or more of the 10 task groups successfully" while they do not do so for the Macintosh or OS/2 users. This implies that they counted the entire groups of these users, including the ones who did not accomplish the tasks successfully. They did this again with "that group of users of Windows 95" versus simply "Mac users".
Only by comparing their successes to our failures can they come out ahead. It's pretty sad when they have to resort to this sort of thing.
Remember, Mark Twain said it best: "There are three types of lies. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." I think this study fits all three of these categories.
And just in case you wondered, MacOS Rules!
Created on Sun, Nov 26, 1995 and last modified on Wed, Feb 25, 1998.
IBM's Response
Microsoft's Press Release
My Comments
Apple's Response:
Background on the study
Concerns about the study
Conclusions
Apple Computer, Inc.
IBM's Response
Microsoft recently released results from a study which indicated that
users of Windows 95 outperformed users of OS/2. The study raises more
questions than it answers.
Microsoft's Press Release
My Comments
In a key measure of productivity, users of Windows 95 who completed eight or more of the 10 task groups successfully did so in 22 percent less time than Mac users and in 51 percent less time than OS/2 users. Eighty-five percent of that group of users of Windows 95 completed the test in less than one hour, compared to 47 percent of the Mac users.
Return to my Macintosh Advocacy page
Return to opposing the Microsoft juggernaut
Return to my home page