Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Bites Apple, Apple Bites Back
hype7 writes "The NYT (free reg reqd etc) is running an interesting article on where MS seems to be getting all the ideas for its next big OS release, Longhorn. It's only a quickie, but they look at MS's big news from WinHEC, and their possible sources for inspiration. They also pull out that fantastic Bill Gates quote: 'The one thing Apple's providing now is leadership in colors'; and that Apple execs are now having a laugh of their own over how Longhorn, 'Microsoft's 2005 version of its Windows operating system, apes features that have been in Apple's OS X operating system since 2001.'"
The Win95 shell imitates NeXTStep in its appearance far more than it does MacOS, and its behavior is Motif-like. (Or vice-versa depending on who you ask.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Am I the only one who remembers the "Look and Feel" lawsuit Apple lost after MS first released Windows? MS already knows they can steal anything they like without any significant retribution from either the government or other corporations, which is exactly what they do. The only real innovation coming from Redmond is new and better ways to take other people's technology, add it to their own, then put the original creators out of business.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
Wrong. The Apple Lisa had a pre-emptive multi-tasking OS with protected memory, but the hardware cost too much (the Motorola 68k in particular had a paging bug at the time that required them to use their own MMU). The Lisa was $10K in 1983. The Mac didn't have those features (and a lot more), and was $3K in 1984. The Mac won in the marketplace over the Lisa, therefore it can be argued that co-operative multi-tasking and a simple memory model are better.
After all, if pre-emptive multi-tasking and protected memory are so important, everyone would have used OS/2 instead of Windows 3.1.
dork.
Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
You conveniently left out the most important part:
You can freely burn the songs onto a standard CD and then listen to them anywhere and in any manner you choose.
THAT's the different between Apple DRM and MS DRM. Apple did what they had to in order to make the deal with the record companies: put some barriers in the way of egregious out-and-out mass piracy. Microsoft, on the other hand, is going above and beyond the call of duty: They're workng overtime with hardware vendors to ensure that in the future nobody, including independent content creators themselves, will be able to generate, distribute, or play any media without express permission from the distribution cartels.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
While OSX does enjoy several advantages over OS/2, I am not convinced that it's going to be enough to buy Apple any long-term gain. I suspect that any move Microsoft makes against the Open Source community will also be very dangerous to Apple. At the very least, Apple is going to have to remain vigilant if they are to avoid any potential dirty tricks.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This wasn't exactly a goodwill investment. Do a search of "hand in the cookie jar" in relation to this stock purchase and you'll find where several insiders mention how Microsoft was caught using quite a bit of code directly from the older MacOS codebase in Windows. This isn't Apple advocacy btw (no interest in either platform), it's just one of those facts that no one admits to for obvious reasons.
Jobs opted for some cash and public Microsoft backing (Office for the MacOS) to make the MacOS look viable for the near future, and Microsoft was given a way out of a lawsuit by Apple for the ripped off code. Apple needed Microsoft a bit more than vice versa, but M$ avoided some bad PR and likely lost $$$ with OS rewrites (hell, maybe even royalties back to Apple).
Frankly, I don't care if M$ rips off OS X (legally that is). I think OS X is great, but if M$ engages in fair competition then who can really bitch? They'll do what Apple could've done years ago and bring it to hardware that has more options for the end user. Competition can be good..
Oh, and BTW, Apple has a definite point here. The difference is that Apple took an unfriendly OS and turned it into a consumer product.
Let me see --
.
...
Windows (19)95 was a brand new operating system concept never conceived before -- with the exception of Macintosh OS (1988)
iWin (2004) is a brand new computer concept never conceived before -- with the exception of iMac (1997) then iMac FP
Reverse engineering is the sincerest form of flattery. Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. Copyright violation is the sincerest form of flattery. -- M$ ripping you off is the sincerest form of flattery.
Run, Apple, run!
This is reminiscent of Sony. Sony was only 15% of the consumer electronics market (compared to National/Panasonic), so Sony had to innovate or die. As Sony innovated, others would take Sony's ideas, reverse engineer them, modify them, and create competing products. [Revive Beta versus VHS argument, here] For example, Sony developed and sold the only digital camera with memory card and modem in the early 80s. It did not catch on and Sony was about to cancel the product line when a reporter took pictures of an aircraft crash, sent them to his editor, and his newspaper scooped everyone with pictures. Now, few remember the original Sony digital camera with stick and modem and how Sony helped lead the digital revolution
Sony leads, others follow.
Apple innovates, M$ assimilates
The Linux community has recently been rabid in its desire to get rid of such things. The "choose your environemnt" philosophy has been sacrificed in favor of the KDE/GNOME wars, and
The current Linux community hates innovation. They wouldn't know innovation if it rose up and bit them in the ass. Anything new and different is seen as a kind of dangerous superceding of Windows, which is apparently what users REALLY WANT and Linux is talked about as being WAAAAAAY "behind" (aside from X-hating, KDE/GNOME-hating posts, witness the diatribes the other day against Unix in general in the Gobo story).
Linux began as almost pure innovation, an OS written from the ground up by GNU and Linus Torvalds. It is network-centric, runs on devices ranging from tiny to supercomputer, supported SMP, software RAID, IPV6, and a million other features before any of the other consumer operating systems. It's still one of the only free pieces of "major" software in the world. The marriage of Unix, new ideas, new technologies and new languages in Linux has created probably the single most productive large-scale computing environment in history, and at one of the lowest price points, too.
And yet Linux users (especially the converts over the last 3-5 years) can't stop moaning about how Linux will never be successful until it apes Windows and MacOS. And then they complain about a lack of innovation...
Methinks Linux users are confused. Or maybe they can't see the forest for the trees. Or something.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
And what is that thing hanging off the left side? And why on Earth would it be there?
It's the handset for the integrated telephone. It does look stupid there, it (along with the camera sticking out on the otherside) ruins whatever sleek appearance the computer might otherwise have.
This is a perfect example of Microsoft's true innovation-- they do really stupid shit when they're not copying someone else outright <cough>MS Bob<cough>. If you're going to integrate a fucking phone with a computer, do it in a way that leaves people's hands free to operate the computer while they talk! What next, are they gonna hang a memo pad and a pencil on a string off the side of this thing, so you can jot down ideas while you're using the computer?
If I were designing this thing, I'd build in Bluetooth, and use a rechargable wireless headset for the phone. Hide the recharge bay on the rear edge of the display. Let the headset's mic also be used for speech-to-text and giving verbal commands to the computer. And build in a good mic and speakers so you can use a speakerphone if you don't want to wear the headset or so you don't have to fumble for it if you're not wearing it when there's an incoming call.
/me runs off to the Patent Office with a hard copy of this post, just in case anyone from Microsoft reads it.
~Philly
The only reason not to have scrollbars on the top and left is if there was some other useful clickable stuff already using that space. The top of windows is devoted to menus or buttons- traditionally, there hasn't been anything on the left, although recently some button bars or "Sidebars" show up there.
Indeed, as a consequence of english being left-to-right, paper books have required us to reach to the right, with our right hand, to turn the page. Since that is essentially what a scrollbar does, it seems to be more fitting with more traditional media to have scrollbars on the right.
If you think about it. :) Also, since the language is left to right, you're more likely to find a sentence ending closer to the right-hand side than the left-hand side, and your eyes will be closer to the scrollbars.
One more thing: Since most people are right-handed, and they use their mouse on the right-hand side of the screen, it feels more natural to them to reach to the right to scroll down.
Final point:
There isn't any *right place* to put a scrollbar. Windows sucks because you don't have any choice. The closest thing to the right place for a scrollbar is a preferences setting that lets the user pick.
Like what I said? You might like my music