Slashdot Mirror
Apple vs Microsoft- Who's the Copycat?
torrensmith writes "Paul Thurrott attacks the Apple Mac OS X Leopard Preview. He does have a few kind words for Apple and its leader Steve Jobs ("They do good work. It's too bad they feel the need to exaggerate so much.", but overall, he rips apart Apple for mimicking Vista, even going so far as to call the Apple fascination with Vista "childish."
Paul does include a healthy review of the latest Leopard features, but quickly returned to his bashing of Apple. "
I think the headline should say "mocking" instead of "mimicking"
Until Vista actually comes out, these comments amount to not much more than so many farts in a steady breeze.
Find your friends!
I don't give a damn who's copying who. If the features are useful and functional, then kudos to any developer of any system, (not even limiting myself to software here,) who adds those features to their system.
note: I am not a Mac user nor even a Windows user anymore.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
I didn't see any bashing in here. All his points are well taken as he swats Microsoft or Apple appropriately. They both steal whatever they think is best - the huge difference being that Apple can actually deliver something on a reasonable time schedule.
Of course if you're one of Steve's Commandos type of Mac owners I can see where this article is Pearl Harbor all over again, especially where he alludes to the RDF.
Ok, so which part of 'News for Nerds' does this come under?
from the does-it-really-matter dept.
(Really.)
Developers: We can use your help.
Sure, the features shown at WWDC were a bit underwhelming for us "ordinary folk." Although I do think that Time Machine looks amazing. There's going to be more, just be patient. Apple's not going to give away all the good stuff when there's still half a year until it's released.
It's stupid to ask if Microsoft or Apple is the one stealing from the other. Most ideas we see successfully implemented today are taken from somewhere else and (hopefully) improved. Take e.g. Spaces. Yes, there have been virtual desktops for Linux for years (and I've been using Desktop Manageron OS X for this purpose for some), but spaces is neatly integrated into Expose and viewing all virtual desktops in miniature versions the way Spaces does might even be new, at least I haven't seen it before.
So is it copied? Or is it invented? None of both, it is evolved. Yes, Windows can already make system snapshots like Time Machine. No, it cannot do it in a way that it can be easily managed by a normal user. Copied? Invented? If Vista brings a nicer interface similar to Time Machine, did they copy it back?
The originator of an idea is less important in a world where evolution is as important as with operating systems and GUIs. So these comparisons try to artificially generate a difference where none exists. My personal reference will be which implementation works best for me, not who came up with the inspiration.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
Its hard not to copy features when according to Microsoft vista will do everything but slice bread. Until its released you really can't say its being copied.
I'd say that a company being focused intently on its competitors is a staple of business, isn't it? That having been said- I would imagine that a company who is so famous for their ~vision~ would need more than anything that the public accept their products as original and innovative.
It's called marketing. Besides it plays into peoples perceptions of MS products. Even people who don't know why they should dislike Windows say they do because it's expected, Apples campaigns simply play into that.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
...But not by Windows. Time Machine goes way beyond Windows' System Restore, and is more similar to VMS's versioning filesystem. Spaces is just virtual desktops, yes, but Windows never had them either [from Microsoft] except for a half-assed "PowerToy."
Spotlight is not like Windows Search. Spotlight uses metadata much more extensively, and is actually more similar in concept to the database filesystem that BeOS had 10 years ago and that Microsoft has been trying (and failing) to implement since about the same time. So yes, Apple "copied" it -- but from BeOS, not Windows.
In terms of actual new functionality, all those add up to less than the amount of new functionality Apple has added to Mac OS X in the same time frame. Yes, SP2 was major, Media Center was major, Tablet PC Edition was major, and I'll allow his assertion that x64 was major. But that's it. All those other editions only differed in which combination of preexisting features they included.
False. Apple has Front Row, which has much less functionality than Media Center, but is certainly not "nothing like" it. And Apple has something like "Tablet PC functionality" too. It's called Inkwell. The only reason nobody knows about it is that, since Apple doesn't sell a Tablet Mac, you've got to have a Wacom tablet to use it.
That's not true; they've been "trying" to ship the features that Vista was supposed to have since about 1995 (e.g. a metadata filesystem), and still haven't managed to do so. So really, they've used every codename from "Chicago" to "Blackcomb" to describe all the functionality that Vista is supposed to have.
As I said before, the idea originally came from BeOS. Aside from that, the shortcuts Apple took to make Spotlight (i.e. it isn't actually part of the filesystem) resemble the steps Microsoft took when going from WinFS to Windows Search.
And then the rest of the article consists of Paul listing the things that he admits Microsoft copied. I'll omit those since I have no argument with them.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
..is KDE!
There, would that make him happy? Honestly, it's been said time and time again that the best features of one OS tend to bleed over into others, whether it involves the GUI, networking, or filesystems. Honestly, Apple only makes "photocopier" comments to differentiate themselves in the market from Windows. But I guess logic like that, marketing or otherwise, doesn't generate the page hits required.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
In the very first paragraph, he establishes what a horrible person Jobs is for competing with Microsoft. And I suppose David was an asshole for standing up to Goliath? Needless to say, he doesn't even mention Bill Gates throughout the entire article.
So then he goes on to attack the improvements over the past couple years:
He claimed that Apple shipped five "major" updates to OS X, including Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger, though I'd argue that virtually none of those were major updates at all. (Unless you count the cost. At $129 for each version, that's about $750 on Mac OS X upgrades since 2001. That kind of puts the cost of Windows in perspective.) But he counted Tiger on Intel as a sixth major release, because of the effort in porting the OS X code to a new platform (which, actually, had been in the works for a long time and wasn't the 210 day project Jobs claimed).
By that measure, Microsoft has improved Windows by a far greater degree. In the same time frame, it has shipped Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional Edition, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 (and 2005 UR2), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, Windows XP Home and Professional N Editions, Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2, absolutely a big Windows upgrade), Windows XP Embedded, Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, and Windows XP Starter Edition in various languages
Am I missing something? XP, XP, XP, XP... the only differences between most being software bundles, hardware compatibility, and driver support. and he fails to mention that pretty much all of those also have a price tag well over $100.
Thanks to the 64-bit Xeon chip that will be shipping in the new Mac Pro systems, Leopard will be fully 64-bit enabled (unlike Tiger, which is only partially 64-bit and then only on certain Power PC systems). That means that OS X will finally do what Windows XP x64 Edition did last year: Run 32-bit and 64-bit applications natively, side-by-side. Good for them.
So Windows released a seperate 64-bit version (which you have to buy seperately as well) before Apple. Again, no big deal. Almost every product on the market is starting to move towards 64-bit support. Is Apple really "copying" Windows here?
It seems to me that all these arguments are really week and that this guy just wants to complain about Apple. I really think he could've used his time more productively.
It's important for you to understand, however, that I don't have Leopard. I'm basing this only on what Apple showed off at WWDC.
Maybe you should try it before you knock it.
--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
A site specialized on Windows and with a strong relationship with Micrsooft bashes a competitor OS to defend Vista and make it look like the one that is truly original... I'm shocked! SHOCKED!
(yeah, I got the karma to burn)
Apple is a business trying to compete in a market dominated by a single organization with a 95% market share. Of course Apple is going to compare their operating system to Vista. It doesn't even really make sense to do otherwise. And a good way of attracting people is to flaunt your system's superiority. I don't really see it as elitism.
I'd say he has a valid point on some things.
The one major thing I have a problem with is him touting XP64.
XP 64bit is the hugest piece of shit know to man.
Thats why it costs less than 32bit XP.
Little to no drivers for it, seperate paths for 32 and 64 executables, ontop of it just being buggy beta code level of stability.
It's worse quality wise than WindowsME.
...if you look properly, it looks a lot like Microsoft is copying Apple. In the latest beta of Vista, progress meters shimmer. Windows slide into the taskbar when minimised. And practically everything glows when hovered over. Sound familiar, anyone???
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. While it's true that most features of either OS aren't completely new, there's a big difference between the way Microsoft and Apple incorporate them. Apple tends to create innovative new user interfaces (Time Machine) while Microsoft tends to copy features verbatim, even down to icon style and color schemes in some cases (some examples are given in the presentation).
Another key thing to note is WHEN each company incorporates new features. Apple tends to get things first (first in the sense of before Microsoft) and do cool new things with them while Microsoft tends to get them months or years later and does absolutely nothing new or innovative.
As for the Microsoft bashing during the WWDC it was well deserved. Microsoft deserves to be bashed for taking 5 years to develop a new OS and constantly delaying it while dropping many of its biggest features. And no matter how much you want to argue about Microsoft copying off Apple I hope you can at least agree that they're chasing after Apple's iPod and Google's web services like a little dog that got its bone stolen by a bigger one.
Most of the Mac kiddies like myself aren't really claiming that Microsoft is ripping off Apple in the biblical sense, just that Apple is the leader - the one daring to go where Microsoft probably would never have gone otherwise. If you want the latest and the greatest you have to love Apple and wait for Microsoft.
Haiku for you!
Back at the CES, wasn't an MS exec hyping a slew of new features in Vista, all of which already existed in commercially available versions of OS X for several years? Someone has even made a video displaying OS X's features in sync with the audio of the supposed new features of Vista which wasn't publically released at the time.
I really don't want to humor the article by following the link because I suspect a Dvorak-ism going on here.
It's possible that they were MS ideas which Apple managed to beat MS to the market on those features by several years, but frankly, many of those ideas are likely from somewhere else.
The "spaces" feature is Apple catching up on the virtual desktop concept (was available as an XP PowerToy, but before then, was an X window feature), but none of the other introduced features seemed to be rips of Vista.
The features shown at WWDC were generally features developers want, and hints at the technology under them:
(I'm not saying all the features shown appeal only to developers, of course, just that Jobs and crew knew their audience. Many of these features appeal to other groups, too: iChat, Time Machine and Mail clearly appeal to other computer professionals who spend their job working on a Mac. WebClip will appeal to even casual users.)
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
Another truly major new feature, Spaces lets you utilize multiple desktops, each of which can contain its own set of application. Multiple desktops have been around for decades, and even the earliest Linux versions had this feature. Microsoft even implemented it in NT-based versions of Windows, though the company curiously never made it easy to access this functionality until it shipped a free PowerToy for Windows, called Virtual Desktop Manager, in 2001. It works an awful lot like Spaces, frankly, though Apple's version is obviously more polished and, well, Apple-like.
Well obviously this guy is either so biased he can't help it or he has a really terrible picture of what virtual desktops actually are. I tried Virtual Desktop Manager and it's bloody awful, I honestly can't think of enough bad words to say about it. That is the difference between OSX and other OSs IME, the Apple stuff just works. Microsoft stuff especially you have to screw around with for 10 minutes first.
The author may have wanted to pay attention to the part of the keynote where Steve says there are many things they would not show about Leopard because they didn't want MS to copy them (complete with a "Top Secret" slide). To assume these are the only new features of Leopard is rather foolish. Why would Steve show his hand early if he doesn't have to? Apple has been burned enough by MS the way it is.
If he's going to compare features, wait until we get the full story of what's in Leopard.
Well known Microsoft supporter has a few bad words to say about Apple.
Ok, so which part of 'News for Nerds' does this come under?
apple.slashdot.com, where all stories are either spiteful media bias by trolls who want to get their hit-count up by groundlessly bashing Apple, or slavish fanboy posts by "Reality Distortion Field" victims who are lining up to drink poisoned Flavorade.
If you try to write a balanced story or comment about Apple, you will be accused of being both.
The facts:
Microsoft has frequently bought, borrowed or stolen all kinds of UI concepts from Apple, but generally doesn't do as good a job at implementing them for some reason. They have some very bright programming minds at Microsoft, but for some reason they are (and pretty much always have been) famously weak on design concepts.
Apple has turned around and taken a few UI tools from Microsoft as well (most notably contextual "right-click" menus, and the schedule integration they are rolling into the next version of Mail.app), mainly for the sake of meeting the expectations of OS "switchers."
My broad generalization of the trend:
When Microsoft takes from Apple, it's because Apple came up with a great idea. When Apple takes from Microsoft, it's because Microsoft has pushed a new industry standard on the market.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Funny how the World Wide Developers Conference was developer-heavy, huh?
Slashdot: where repeating an article in a post is "+5 Insightful"
''But by the same token, I have to admit to being a bit shocked by how childish Apple is about Vista.
Its not just Apple. Anybody who still thinks Vista is great is childish. I too share your shock
Internet Explorer
Outlook
Project
Visual Fox Pro
Maintining them for the Macintosh, well, that's another issue
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Apple copying Windows? Ha. If you've tried the Windows Vista beta, you'd notice that the resemblence to OS-X (and some of the popular linux GUIs, but that's off topic) is almost scary. Take a look at the history of both companies to really see who copies who.
Back in the early 80's, Apple was almost solely responsible for popularizing the home PC, if not inventing it, with the Apple II's, LISA's, etc. Microsoft responded with Windows 1.0, 2.0, and the popular 3.0 & 3.1, which weren't much more than a DOS shell that looked almost exactly like Apple's first GUIs, which came a couple years earlier. And Apple actually made their own machines. Steve Jobs had a lot to do with this, especially in the mid-80's when he merged his NeXT project with Apple. Ever since the beginning, Apple has been ahead of Microsoft (as far as I'm concerned) in every aspect, except perhaps with their hold on the market, and that's paritally because Apple chooses to spend their money and resources on R&D instead of marketing tactics.
Nowadays, it's getting harder not to copy each other, as well as other companies & OS's, because the seemingly main goal is to make it look "prettier" than the others. Reliability and functionality are already rather attainable (except with the remaining bugs in Vista...oops) so the focus now becomes what the consumer will consider more when shopping for a new PC.
Stable? Sure. Can I do what I want with it? More. But this one looks prettier!
Life freezes when the servers crash.
Nope. A third party created a QuickTime plugin that plays Windows Media files better than the Mac player. They just released an Intel version of this plugin.
Microsoft has released nothing to date that is a Universal Binary. They are currently promising a universal version of Messenger 6.0 later this year, and a free universal version of Remote Desktop Client. There isn't a date set on the next version of Office. Virtual PC and Windows Media Player for Mac have been cancelled.
- oZ
// i am here.
"But he counted Tiger on Intel as a sixth major release, because of the effort in porting the OS X code to a new platform (which, actually, had been in the works for a long time and wasn't the 210 day project Jobs claimed)."
The 210 days was for the switch for the entire product line to Intel processors. Jobs NEVER said it took 210 days to port OS X to Intel, he had admitted previously they had OS X running on Intel for a few releases already.
Why blast Vista? It is going to full of technological
breakthroughs and really is not that far behind schedule.
I hear it's going to be shipped any day now.
Sincerely,
Duke Nukem Forever
WMP for mac is nomore.
You might be referring to Flip4mac the quicktime plugin that Microsnot says you should use to replace WMP.
Some ideas are good and are adopted by both, some fall by the wayside. I don't look in my garage at my Ford and my Toyota and freak out; "OMG! Both Vehicles have 4 wheels, 4 doors, and a steering wheel! The Toyota must be copyng the Ford!" It's just natural evolution. That's the best way to do stuff. Cars have been around for over 100 years and are for lack of a better term, a mature product. Personal compuers roughly 30. There's still a lot of great ideas out there that Mac or Windows or KDE or Gnome, or XFCE, etc etc. will come up with that will end up in the other systems.
That's how you build a product. Grab as many good ideas as you can and make them seamlessly work together.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
Apple playing off its fans' disdain for Microsoft is nothing new. I saw a bumper sticker mocking Windows 95's backward-compatible long file name support reading "CNGRTLNS.W95" with an Apple logo.
In the end, the joke ended up being on Mac OS: 31 characters for a file name was fine for a while, but many common MP3 file names went way beyond that, causing problems as late as Mac OS 9.
For more information, click here.
I love this little preemptive strike from his conclusion...
Gee, you conclude your column with a passive-aggressive insult. Of course, there's going to be another round of name-calling, Paul! You started it! Yeah, zealots are a fact of life when discussing operating systems, but you don't take the high road by sneering at the other guy's lack of elevation.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Speaking as someone who does marketing for a living, my aim is to make my product appeal to people who don't already use it. Apple's strategy seems to be to patronize and insult the intelligence of anybody who doesn't drink the Cupertino cool-aid. Ask yourself how irritated you are by the smug patronizing Apple adds of late, thye've pretty much cured me of any desire to by a Mac.
When Apple steals from MicroSoft, they get it right.
When MicroSoft steals from Apple, it doesn't work as well, and it crashes the system even faster.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
It's just a little corporate trash talking. Lighten up.
That's good, because Apple stole Sidebar idea wholeheartedly from Konfabulator and other widget environments that predated Dashboard.
Christ... remember, kids, ideology is not just a point of view, it's a mental illness. Just say no. :)
I get a lot of flak from the Mac community and no doubt this article will start another round of name-calling. (See how Apple's childish behavior rubs off on its fans?)
Well, if you insist. How about "elitist, holier-than-thou prick who needs to be kicked in the nuts so hard he'll tea bag himself every time he sneezes." Howzat?
Man, I just have NO patience for pundits anymore.
So what does he want? Apple seems to have pretty much everything Microsoft was planning to ship (and probably some of the stuff they ended up dropping) with Vista covered. He's long on criticism for Apple's mountains-out-of-molehills marketing, which is completely valid, but he doesn't say what they're missing at all.
He explains right off why Apple has to be grandiose about their software. They're trying to get attention for their computer business. They're trying to increase that tiny sliver of market share they have, and if they just hop up on stage and say "Hey guys, we got a couple new features in here. Hope you buy our computers," nobody's going to go for it.
Microsoft can afford to be more reserved and dismissive of Apple and their other competitors. They're the 800lb gorilla. Even admitting Apple exists is probably more than they'd like, because more people will hear that than all the Apple shouting from the rooftops in the world.
Game... blouses.
The idea of snapshots is nothing new and has been around MUCH MUCH longer than Volume Shadow Copy. Apple is not copying it from MS, they (like MS) are taking an old idea that has been in volume managers and storage systems for many years and implementing it. Network Appliance has had an awesome snapshotting system since the mid / late 90's (not exactly sure when it started, but I was using it in 98.)
Yup, VMS had autoversioning of files way back when, but it was the Apple Lisa(tm) that had a GUI based file versioning system. When you created a document, an icon was created that looked like a page. When you editted the document, pages where added to the icon that looked stacked. You could easily go back to any prevision version. (This may have been copied from the Xerox Star system out of PARC that Apple copied.)
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
When your product dominates the marketplace as Windows does, you can and should expect the underdog to take potshots at you. This is not considered bad behavior for an underdog. Microsoft doesn't publicly bash Apple because that would play in Apple's favor, not because of some odd sense of propriety. If Microsoft's people (Paul Thurrott) feel badly because their one desktop competitor bashes their product they seriously need to get a life and quit taking this personally.
I seem to recall that Apple ripped off Karelia's Watson for their search capability, not Vista. Both companies have a penchant for stealing features from each other and their own third party developers to bundle with their operating system. Anyone remember the Stacker/Doublespace fiasco? Netscape/Internet Explorer. Konfabulator/Dashboard. Watson/Sherlock. And let us not forget the Apple vs. MS look and feel lawsuit of 1988. Surprise! Apple and MS both ripped off Xerox! I'm sure there are many many more I coud add to this list.
In summary: It's perfectly acceptable to mock the incumbent; in addition, idea "theft" is practically a tradition in the operating system business.
Thurott's column is, IMHO, pretty much on the mark. In fact it seems to me that from about 1996 on, many of the things Apple has done have been, if not copying Wintel, nevertheless moving closer and closer to it. The miserable Dock is functionally very much like the WIndows 95 taskbar, the Finder and OS now handle file extensions about the same way Windows does, and so forth.
.mp3 players. I must have read two dozen reviews that all begin the same way: This could be the iPod killer. The reviewer always says that it has, you know, twice the storage, more features, longer battery life, a lower price, whatever. Then as the review goes on it becomes painfully obvious that the reviewer encountered a number of serious problems--invariably dismissed as "glitches." It wouldn't play, or it crashed, or it wouldn't sync properly to the PC, or it wouldn't play music that the reviewer had paid for. Invariably the reviewer mentions that despite having just as many knobs and buttons as an iPod, the menu system was difficult to use, and so forth.
.mp3 player they'd ever seen... because it was the first one that had been "perfected."
And, yes, Jobs' presentations are rather dishonest... starting from the day in 1984 when he pulled a Mac out of a bag and demonstrated things like MacinTalk, never bothering to mention that he was using a prototype Mac with 512K of RAM and that of his demos would run on the shipping Mac (which had 128K).
Still, it is important to recognize that what Apple has been good at is innovation, which is not the same as invention. Most of Apple's innovations were not invented by Apple, but Apple wrapped them up, made them work, gave them fit and finish, made sure they would work for your mom and not some geek in a lab.
To use an old-fashioned word, Apple is great at perfecting things.
This shows up particularly in the world of
To put it bluntly, the iPod was an Apple innovation. It didn't actually do anything that Creative and other companies hadn't been doing for years... but it worked, and people liked it, and for an awful lot of people it was the first
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
From TFA:
"In the same time frame, it has shipped Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional Edition, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 (and 2005 UR2), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, Windows XP Home and Professional N Editions, Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2, absolutely a big Windows upgrade), Windows XP Embedded, Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, and Windows XP Starter Edition"
That's great. Not only are the 64 bit editions very unstable to this day (and shouldn't be counted as "released" until they are), the difference between all of these "releases" of Windows XP is which features were #ifdef'ed out of the pro version, which service pack they shipped with, and which drivers they shipped with. That's not a "release." I don't know anyone that would look at XP Starter Edition and say "Yes! What a great new release! A true engineering marvel!"
Besides, until we really see Vista as a released product, I'm not ready to compare it to the very first version of OSX, much less Leopard. Maybe it'll fall short of what OSX has always been, maybe it'll eclipse Leopard - I'll decide when it's released, but comparing a few tweaks for XP to the OSX releases is hillariously ignorant.
Well as someone who is not so damn sensitive about things and looks at everything as some sort of personal insult, the latest Apple ads have made me laugh.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
With that out of the way, a bunch of other "less exciting" features were announced, albeit not in the keynote.
A few highlights:
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Intellitype and Intellipoint 6.0
Both are copy cats in my book cause of the Amiga.
Yeah you thought it wouldn't be brought up.
Apple didn't steal the kernel from BSD. They had the Mach kernel from NeXT and used a lot of non-kernel stuff from FreeBSD. Exactly how Linus "stole" GNU, replacing Hurd with Linux.
No. Volume Shadow Copy is a backup utility, it's not file-grained (it works at the volume level, even though you can restore individual files), it's hand-triggered (Time Machine will more than likely be automatic, just as VMS' filesystem was in 1975), and it only allows you to create 512 images.
Time Machine is either a copy of VMS' versioning filesystem, or a copy of 20 years old Source Version Control tools retrofit to the job by removing features useless to regular end-users (commit messages, blames, ...) as it works on a per-file basis, saves full history and doesn't require user action to create new versions.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
That's as absurdly over the top as calling linux a "cancer." Has Microsoft ever labeled anyone a terrorist? Realize that the Gates's foundation (started in 2000) has helped the world more than any linux user. You sound ridiculous.
Note that I don't really care whether or not anyone from Microsoft has ever labelled anyone a terrorist. Nonetheless:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a separate entity from Microsoft. Its activities, while they are financed, in large part, by Microsoft's success, have no bearing on the merit of Windows as an operating system or Microsoft as a company. To use its activities as a counter-argument to anything related to Microsoft is truly ridiculous.
Instructions for booting OSX in the command line here.
Right-clicking for contextual menus was around as an additional software feature (sometimes even included with mouse driver software) long before it was part of any OS, but Microsoft added it as a built-in feature of Windows95 long before Apple jumped on the bandwagon.
Granted, if it was also a feature of NeXT, then Apple probably would have carried it over to OS X regardless of what MS was up to, since OS X is really just the newest version of NeXT with a few MacOS features bolted on, but the fact remains that Apple was late to the party on this particular feature.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Back in 1997, Steve Jobs got on stage at MacWorld and told the Mac faithful to get over it, the desktop war is over and Microsoft won. So why does Apple seem to want to promote the idea that Windows is copying a lot of things from OS X?
1. Perfection Required 2. Provocation Means Attention 3. Developer Motivation 4. Justifying Reverse Copying 5. The Next Wave All of these reasons add up to some very compelling reasons to do a little ribbing at Microsoft's expense. It's doubtful that any of this will stop before Leopard goes live, but it most certainly won't get worse. Apple isn't likely to venture into territories of slander or libel.Microsoft found it cheaper to pay Flip4Mac to allow free downloads of the plugin. MS makes sure that the Flip4Mac item is a free download, but they do nothing to develop it directly. It existed before MS started linking to it
Microsoft actually has discontinued development of the Windows Media Player (if that's the program you mean). The last version (WMP 9) was released for OS X in 2003. Microsoft has also discontinued development of Internet Explorer for the Mac (last version was v5) and Virtual PC now that Parallels has beaten them to the punch. What you might be referring to is Flip4Mac, which recently released a Universal binary of their Quicktime plugin that allows windows media to be played in OS X (although not always well).
r oducts.aspx?pid=windowsmedia
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherp
New things are hard for most people to grasp, and so they don't see the innovation. Innovators have to spend a lot of time trying to demonstrate their innovation. In this matter, Apple has hardly done a good job explaining the innovations; they seem to have expected everyone else to look at the announcements and to put them into context. Obviously that hasn't happened, and everyone is saying that Apple made meager announcements, with nothing cool. Paul is one of the blind people, and most of Slashdot is blind too. Paul says that Time Machine was already implemented by Windows. That is balloney. Earlier, the Slashdot crowd claimed that Time Machine reimplements VMS's file system. That is balloney. Time Machine is too innovative for you guys to see why it is awesome, so here is my attempt at explaining it, to make it clear that innovation is hard to spot: http://slashdot.org/~XMLsucks/journal/141549
The thing is, Apple may not be doing wholly original stuff here, but the reality is that they take what they do and make it usable and appealing. Take for example, expose's ability to show you every window you have open at the same time. This is trivial to do. But it's such an amazingly useful thing and it's implemented elegantly.
I saw the preview video of time machine and yeah maybe the interface is a little hokey, but the basic idea of it and how they interface with it is borderline brilliant. No longer does somebody even have to think in terms of backups, they just go into time machine and get the old copy. It's just simple.
This is what Apple has always been good at. They don't necessarily invent the wheel, but they sure make a wheel that's easy to use and has nice rims. The stuff just works. The reviewer clearly doesn't get the appeal of it because feature for feature it isn't that different. But how it does what it does is really what makes it distinctive.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Knock yourself out:
http://harnly.net/software/letterbox/
(note: I am not affiliated with this site or software in any way)
You make it sound like Microsoft has never had a good idea in its life, and that Apple only borrows from Microsoft when it has no other choice. This is not the case. "Time Machine," for example, is Volume Shadow Copy, except probably easier to implement. (Although this depends on how MS integrates it into Vista.) I'm not an expert in Apple's OS (I stick to Windows and Linux myself) but I'm sure if I did a little digging I could find plenty of genuinely insightful concepts created at Microsoft that Apple copied.
Everyone steals from everyone. The only real concern should be who presents the most user-friendly package without compromising security or reliability. If that package is also pretty, hey, all the better. Apple's done a much better job at this than Microsoft, although to be fair (from a security standpoint), Microsoft's user base is much larger, so those holes that are found receive much greater publicity and affect a lot more people--which has greatly aided the conception that Windows is not a secure OS.
Well-said. I can think of a great example. Alt-Tab switching I think first appeared on Windows. So Apple implemented it as Command-Tab switching, BUT they improved it. Once the (much better-looking) bay of icons respresenting open programs comes up, if you continue to hold down Command, you can use Command-backquote to iterate backwards through the open windows. Or, if you start by hitting Command-Backquote, the task switcher automatically goes into iteration through the foreground application's open windows. So a combination of keystrokes easily can bring a background application's background window to the fore, with a caveat: in the Apple task-switching world, hidden windows don't come up for iteration, but on the whole, I think it's much cleaner than MS's implementation. I find that I rarely need Expose do to its efficiency.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
It's a fine line, but Apple is so far over that line it's not even funny. Whether you call them elitists, fan-boys, or "the Mac Faithful", it all boils down to Apple catering to a group of people who's default position is that everything Apple and all apple users are awesome while everything launched out of Microsoft and all microsoft users couldn't possibly be as good.
Apple itself has not always taken this elitist position. Didn't Jobs take a $150 million investment from Microsoft and put IE on all Macs for years? However, their recent ads have been designed to make PC users look like bafoons while Apple users bask in, really, an entirely different plane of computer use. I can't think of a more classic definition of elitism.
Answer me this, when in the modern Mac era has apple ever showed it's computers being used by buisnessmen in ties or blue-collar types playing games with their kids? I'm not saying that not being a "company of the people" automatically makes them elitist, but really it doesn't help. Macs are featured as being used by people smarter, hipper and better looking than you or me (well, me anyway). These people are elite. If Apple ever want's to be considered anything but elitist, they can start by showing ads of a receptionist using a Mac. Or is that just too... common?
TW
Microsoft, on the other hand, likes to make grand announcements long before the announced product is even in production. They want to be sure and build up anticipation so that later, when they cut a few features here and there, people will still have heard so much about the forthcoming product that they'll already have it stuck in their heads as something they need. Sure, they're vocal about what Vista "will be like," but that keeps changing.
The real question is whether this marketing strategy will continue to hold up now that Apple is making bigger and bigger headline with every surprise Steve pulls out of his magic turtleneck. Which means that his pokes at MS get more and more coverage as well.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
What does it matter if businessmen use Apple solutions or not? Why hold them up as paragons of taste and class? They also steal their employees' pension funds, evade taxes, buy Congressional leaders, lie about financials, lie about stock options, trade using insider information, illegally leverage their monopolies, illegally hire illegal aliens and visiting foreign students for sub-standard-wage and no benefits, use sweatshop labor to engorge profits, sell State Department listed munitions and products to rogue States, use unlicensed versions of software and kick puppies. Gee-zuz. Who gives a fsck what OS a bunch of asstards like that use.
No, wait, I do care what they use and I'm going to travel 10 miles through the snow uphill both ways just to get my hands on a solution that they DON'T use so nobody will mistake me for a businessman.
Yeah, I'm that sick of businesses.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
If this were a patent case, we would look at who had each idea first. This isnt about patents... it is about implementation. I don't care if Microsoft came up with the "Windows Search" idea in 2000... or 1995... or 1985. The bottom line is that while Microsoft has been talking about desktop search for years, Apple went and actually did it a few (two?) years ago.
Lets look at another example. The Microsoft PowerToy for virtual desktop's dates back a decade (all the way to NT 4). I've used it a few times over the years and I have to say that it sucks. It works... but it sucks. If the MS people had just updated and integrated it into Windows with XP, Apple would not have been able to make such a big deal. What was stopping them? Its an excellent bussiness tool. Frankly I am annoyed that Apple too SO long to come out with virtual desktops. Linux has had them for what seems like forever, and there are already several (free) third-party virtual desktop solutions for the Mac.
Aqua vs. Aero?? Who cares. Maybe Aero was "thought of" first... Aqua has been in production for half a decade (something like that). If Aero was first, them congradulation to Apple on a great preemptive marketing strike.
Widgets and Gadgets. This is pure evil on both sides. Apple ripped the Widgets from Konfabulator. That program was GREAT, I even purchased a license. I was pretty annoyed that Apple did'nt even compensate the original innovator. Microsoft ripped it off of Apple... so I guess Apple deserved that.
The point I am trying to make is that in the end it doesnt really matter who came up with what idea first. The credit goes to the first to market. Welcome to economics... companies release NEW products, or BETTER products. Anything else is just market saturation. On another note, maybe Microsoft will wise up and stop discussing new enchancements 5-10 years before they go to market. Any other company would go out of bussiness by laying their cards face up on the table like that!
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
Unfortunately, bread just isn't compatable with Microsoft's BRM (Bagel Rights Management) and allowing bread slicing on your new Vista PC might have crumby results.
Well, take something that came with the computer -- after installing XP from scratch, I DO have to search the web to get a decent video driver. A fresh OS X install on my Powerbook, and I already have one.
Trouble is, how do you know what hardware will "just work" for Windows? Most of it just doesn't, until you pop in the driver CD or download something off the web.
In any case, let me tell you a story. I once boycotted Pepsi, because I couldn't stand the Pepsi girl. One too many "duh"s, and I decided that was it, my caffinated beverage of choice would be Coke. Plus, I had once had a Diet Pepsi, and it was disgusting.
Now that I'm more mature, I did actually try Pepsi, and since it's all going to be the same price and the same amount anyway, I'll take Pepsi over Coke any day. It's usually sweeter, usually has more flavor, the Coke is just sharp and often salty.
I am very, very hard on computers, and I've made my Linux crash a few times, my Windows a few more, and my Mac maybe once or twice. My parents' laptops (running XP Pro) don't sleep or hibernate properly (although they CAN hibernate), and they were purchased more recently than my Powerbook, which sleeps like a baby, and gets rebooted maybe every couple months. I do miss the ability to hibernate, but not much, as the Sleep is so well executed that it can actually sleep for about a solid 2-3 days before it needs to be charged.
But even if you're going to be that petty about the Mac ads, everyone I show them to laughs their ass off, whether it's true or not. You identify with the Mac, which is actually far more civil to the PC than I've seen any PC user be. They're some of the few ads that people actually want to go download and watch for themselves -- most ads you want to skip through and avoid. I'd call that a success.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I guess you had no idea that holding shift iterates backwards with Ctrl+Tab and Alt+Tab in Windows. It's been like that as long as I can remember. Just because you don't know the keyboard shortcuts doesn't mean they don't exist.
in windows (and for decades) alt-tab switches apps, with the last used at the start of the list.
pressing shift whilst doing this reverses the direction of focus.
pressing ctrl will abort the focus change.
ctrl-tab switches between tabbed and sub-windows of the current app.
again, shift reverses the selection.
tab alone switches between interface elements of the current window.
shift reverses the selection. this is one nice bit of standardisation no-other OS has got to the same extent.
it's a shame that windows doesn't ship with a manual explaining these things, but who would read it anyway?
My broad generalisation:
When Apple "steals from Microsoft", they're just reimplementing ideas that either a) already exist in multiple alternative products, or b) are blatantly obvious improvements to existing technology.
When Microsoft "steals from Apple", they're just reimplementing ideas that either a) already exist in multiple alternative products, or b) are blatantly obvious improvements to existing technology.
As for other items such as the search being stolen entirely from MS. Well I'm not sure how any one can own the idea of a "quick search" using methods that we're accustomed to on the internet. The difference being that MS has rattled on that they'll have the feature for 10 years now and never delivered it. So it's hardly "copying" MS on a feature that has not only never been delivered, but cancelled for the foreseeable future.
Ideas like spaces have been around for a while, it's how it's implemented in OS X which is clever, you only need as much memory as to support the applications, the application windows move, not the desktop.
As for other features like stationery, I wouldn't rattle on too much about the use of themes on internet mediums, as the concept of templating is hardly an original one.
My point here is that a lot of the added features are obvious or a natural evolution of their existing products. It is easy to compare these to MS, but it's hardly copying. The keynote presentation held by apple which highlighted the similarities between vista and 10.3+10.4 etc took only the most blatant examples where MS has been a tad bit unoriginal and directly copied the visual interface, down to the colour scheme used and program nomenclature.
Overall I think Paul just needs to be a bit more like MS and take it on the chin, everyone gets haggled in this industry, it's pointless trying to refute points which only show his lack of research and his genuinely blinded zeal for MS products. Paul only throws in the occassional lucid counter argument merely to appear less biased than what he is, unfortunately the giant scope difference between his pro-apple and pro-ms remarks show his lack of genuineness. That and his logo & style guide are a rip-off of Microsoft graphic design circa 1998.
Speaking as someone makes a living by understanding and interpreting precise meanings in words and images, I must inform you that you missed the boat with those commercials.
You could make a convincing argument that commercials were in some cases insulting to the users. Even though I don't agree with it in most cases, I'll admit that that's a defensible interpretation. However, I don't see how you could take those commercial as an insult to any computer user. Every ad starts like this:
Mac: "Hi. I'm a Mac." PC: "And I'm a PC."
They are not computer users, but anthropomorphizations of computers - basically, what those machines would look like if they turned into a human beings. PC is bookish, formal, and slightly high maintenance. Mac is an easygoing, modest person, but who nonetheless has the smugness around the edges that is often unavoidable in a true genius.
Basically, as the typical PC user in the audience, you're engaged in a conversation with two people - someone you barely know, and someone you both know pretty well. In this kind of situation most of the time you naturally focus on something you have in common (PC) and start to banter about their foibles and shortcomings. They're banking on the fact that most people have a love/hate relationship with their PCs - that while these people like them, they get viruses, they're needlessly complicated to put together, they have compatibility problems with some digital cameras, etc.
The remainder of the audience is people who hate PCs (who are either Mac users already, Unix users or luddites) and people who love. Among these are informed users who've used Macs and have good reasons to not use them. Then there are those who love them so blindly that they cannot see their problems, and among these are those who have spent so much money on a purchase they're unsatisfied with that they are defensive about it and get vicariously insulted whenever anyone points out that it has flaws. Example:
Man buys shoes for incredible amount of money. Man wears shoes for a while and discovers they're slightly too small, but it's too late to take them back. Rather than simply giving up, man sets out to prove that shoes are, in fact, perfect, and ends up blistering his feet horribly in the process. After this, any suggestion that the shoes are, in fact, too small, is met with bitter disagreement and vain argument that they're just the right size and will loosen up in a few weeks.
I would wager that you fall into that category.
I have used Spotlight realtively regularly and like it a lot.
By far the most useful for me is lyric searching. I have used pearLyrics to add the lyrics for most of my music collection into my iTunes library. I can search through all these lyrics using Spotlight to rapidly find out, for example, songs that use the word 'walk', 'swim' or 'avocado' - or even the ones that talk about swimming and avocados. This is really useful when choosing the right piece of music to use as a soundtrack for my home movies.
But its also useful for tracking down particular phrases that you aren't sure which document they are in.
The thing that makes it particularly pleasing to use is its speed. It is real time. It will be completed by the time I finish typing the query in. Windows search is just a nightmare - I just give up because I can't wait for it to finish.
But, hey, if you know the lyrics to every song ever written and everything you have ever created - more power to you. You should go on one of those TV shows they have for people like you.
For example, pretty much everyone "knows" the Apple got a lot of GUI ideas from Xerox. What is probably less understood is how much the original Apple engineers did (I am including people who they hired from Xerox) to improve on the basic ideas they saw. There are a lot of things we take for granted, which the Apple people had to come up with (even basic things like a reliable way to have working overlapping windows, which Xerox didn't really have working).
That's my only problem with the "Oh, but Apple ripped off the GUI from Xerox" defense of Microsoft. There is a significant difference between how Apple and Microsoft approached things. When the Apple guys went to see the stuff at Xerox, it inspired them and they took what they saw and then used it as the basis for a lot of original ideas and enhancements to what had come before. On the other, Bill Gates' big obsession with the Windows guys during its initial development was just to make Windows "work like the Mac". That is, Gates didn't seem to really be pushing his guys to come up with new GUI ideas, etc. or push things forward. He wanted to just replicate the Mac.
That really strikes me as the fundamental difference between Xerox and Apple and Microsoft. Xerox PARC was doing some amazing stuff, but Xerox didn't seem to know what to do with it or have much interest in really bringing it to the masses. Apple was inspired by the Xerox PARC work (Smalltalk in particular), and took it and used it as the foundation to develop a really mainstream GUI concept for the masses. But Microsoft was focused more just on crushing the competition and coming up with a decent enough replica of the existing GUIs.
So, that's my problem with using "But Apple stole it from Xerox" as a defense. It basically makes it sound like there was this single monolithic "GUI" concept that was developed at Xerox, stolen and implemented exactly by Apple, and in turn stolen and implemented by Microsoft. And this just isn't true.
Actually, Apple did more than just copy BeFS and its "DB-like" filesystem metadata facility. They hired the former Be, Inc., engineer who designed BeFS and the cool system of "live queries" that would update in real time as the file system changed. The engineer's name is Dominic Giampolo. As I understand it, Dominic has contributed extensively to HFS+, including the journaling support. He's written a book on file system design too, so this guy can be fairly described as knowing the problem domain pretty well.
Since BeOS is now defunct, I'm glad that Apple absorbed one of the cooler technologies from that OS (which I was an early developer for -- my BeBox is now living in Tucson with a friend). I hate to see good ideas wither and die for lack of a platform. The implementation might not be identical to that in BeOS, but it certainly behaves in much the same way for the end user. I should also point out that both BeFS and HFS+ with Spotlight do pretty much what WinFS promised to do -- except that WinFS now is no longer slated to be included in Vista, and in fact may only ever live in future releases of MS SQL Server.
Even if Apple hadn't absorbed the engineering talent to make this feature possible, Paul Thurrott would still be off-base in claiming that Apple "stole" spotlight from Vista. After all, Vista is still unreleased software, and is still in a state of flux (e.g., features are still being adjusted and, just recently, some were dropped, such as WinFS). It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim that a shipping product "stole" features from a product that still isn't available for sale. (I guess there's room to argue here, but to me, it seems clear that Vista is still vapor for most rank-and-file users.)
I'm writing this as someone who briefly worked for Metrowerks on their BeOS suite of compiler tools, and I met Dominic twice -- once while working for Metrowerks, and once at Comdex at Be's booth. He's a great guy.
There are few ideas that are original to either Microsoft's or Apple's products. Most of their software features have either been acquired, copied from other products, or are based on academic work. And that's perfectly OK, that's the way things are supposed to work.
OS X, in particular, is, from the ground up, a copy of other people's ideas, technologies and software: the Mach kernel, the Cocoa GUI, Objective-C, gcc, vector graphics GUIs, hardware desktop graphics acceleration, the BSD userland, RSS, tabbing, smart folders, mouse sensitive corners, virtual desktops, translucency, shadows, desktop search, mail reader spam filtering, desktop widgets--you name it, it almost certainly was invented and implemented somewhere other than at Apple first. But that's OK: Apple makes good choices in what they copy and they implement it well.
In some sense, part of Microsoft's problem is that they aren't copying enough. When Microsoft copies stuff from other people, they are usually successful with it. When Microsoft comes up with something original, they often fail. The reason why a lot of their "innovations" aren't widely used in the market is not because nobody thought of them before, it's because they didn't work well when other people tried them before.
It doesn't bother me that Apple is not innovative; I think their focus on design and copying proven technologies actually makes their systems better. What bothers me is that Apple isn't doing their share to fund innovation. Microsoft is investing heavily in research, both in their own research labs and grants to universities. Those investments don't necessarily lead directly to Microsoft products, but they make sure that 10-20 years from now, there will still be innovations for people to use. Apple is a bunch of cheapskates; they don't have a research lab and they don't support research or education at universities. Apple should be ashamed when they try to pass themselves off as "innovative".
What does it matter if businessmen use Apple solutions or not? Why hold them up as paragons of taste and class?
I think the parent was simply referring to the fact that people use computers every day in their workplaces, but we don't see Apple ads featuring Macs in the workplace.
As for businessmen as a class of humans not worthy of any respect, your examples seem to be pulling almost exclusively from the excesses of the worst Fortune 500 size companies. Small business fuels the economy:
I have a hard time believing that the people who run most of the businesses in the United States are worthy of such scorn. Painting all businesspeople as vile creatures is akin to saying that all athletes take steroids, all programmers crack DoD systems, and all (pick an ethnic background) are criminals.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm downright startled by the volume of pure, unadulterated asshattery evidenced in Thurrot's article. Some of his strongest "points" are just dead wrong.
His comments that Windows had simultaneous 32-bit and 64-bit support "last year" in XP x64 Edition is just laughable. Anyone who actually attempted the upgrade to find missing drivers, and then that their 32-bit licence had been invalidated by the attempted upgrade, will be heartily rolling their eyes at that one.
When he talks about "Spaces" he mentions that Microsoft at one point put this into a version of NT long before to support his claims that Microsoft did all this stuff first, and then he mentions Linux. Linux has had a multiple-desktop pager solution available for pretty much as long as I can remember (which is a long ways back). Microsoft invented what again?
He repeatedly attempts to imply that OSX's GUI widgets are rip-offs of Vista's "glass" theme, somehow without noticing that Apple has had Aqua just about forever now.
Is this guy campaigning to work for the Bush administration or what?
Ok, I can tell you weren't actually baiting, but this whole topic is in fact bait, so the simple fact that either you or I are contributing anything must be interpretted as fuel.
:
Let me begin by saying that I love Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. Let me also add that I hate/deplore Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. See the problem is that all three main players have made such incredibly large systems that you have to love at least some features and you have to hate some features as well. For example, I love the stability of Windows and Linux. I even think OS X is extremely stable, but the applications for OS X are typically incredibly unreliable and unlike on Windows or Linux where you can use another application for the same thing, Mac probably doesn't have an alternative application.
Linux release schedules have to be ignored since there's really no such thing as a release in Linux, it's more of a compilition of a bunch of stuff that's been released inbetween the previous disc and the new disc.
Let's look at what consititutes and OS X release....
- Applications (that are typically also downloadable separately for previous version such as iTunes, iMovie, etc...) are upgraded and designed to work a little better together
- Unix subsystem features that Apple should have held back the OS before releasing have now been included (so in otherwords, they held them back for the next release or whatever)
- Compiler tools have been upgraded.
- They fixed some performance issues with the Windowing system by implementing hardware hooks to offload processing the the GPU instead of CPU
- They charge you $129 to upgrade to the latest version of address book since the older version is now no longer developed or supported
- They charge you $129 for iSync support for your new telephone instead of releasing a module to support it on the previous version (this is why I upgrdaded to Tiger)
Microsoft released Windows XP, which included APIs for all the third parties to write pretty much anything they wanted to write. The rest of the OS is running strong to this day and I don't see any reason to upgrade to Vista before they make it impossible not to.
So far as I can tell, Microsoft has put a great deal of focus into moving the entire graphical architecture to run on the 3d GPU subsystem on Windows. This is cool, yes Apple did it first, but it's not an issue of copying, people have talked about this for years, it was just logical progression. So, yeh, it was time for Microsoft to do it now that pretty much every machine shipping has at least a half way decent GPU.
Here's a big reason why Apple does it first... they want to brag that they have released a new OS every year for 6 years. As far as I can tell, Microsoft just waited 5 years to include all the features in a $129 upgrade where Apple charges $129 every year for the same feature set.
Does Apple or Microsoft do it better? Who knows, I use both operating systems every single day since I'm in the video business and frankly, the PCs are typically more reliable and require far less reboots than the Macs. The biggest reason for this is Final Cut Pro which is an obscene memory hog, it's the first application running on a UNIX that I've seen that leaves memory all falling to pieces even after being exited.
The keynote picked on Microsoft over the Windows registry. Probably the most useful OS feature ever... in fact it netinfo on Mac would be just as useful if Apple did in fact get developers to use it instead of bashing Windows registry. Instead, I have piles of crap all over my Mac in hundreds of different places and uninstalling applications is damn near impossible, reinstall is the real way to fix a Mac.
So, does Microsoft have a reasonable schedule? I can't say, I tend to find that by the time Microsoft releases a new operating system
- Their compiler tools are all up to date and easy to use
- They have do
I sure hope Microsoft will copy the idea of "non-modal" "sizable" floating windows when it comes to the next version of office, or visual studio (sure i haven't tested the latest beta.. maybe it's there...) And whoever that comes from, whether they copied it or not.. i don't care, because it's real annoying, especially when you have a list with only 4 visible items and the windows size is about one tenth of the space available on your screen, and you just can't make it bigger because some smart ass decided it's not resizable!!!
:) ), but that pseudo micro kernel architecture which is not really one anymore and just adds 36 layers and different approach to kernel programming 1) does not really simplify the job of kernel developpers 2) performances are sluggish. Apple did a great job in Tiger by removing one funnel, and I was kind of hoping that after Tavenian left Apple, we would have a brand new kernel "mostly compatible" with what was there before... but much faster. I want a more "monolithic" apple/bsd and the mach ipc system (can't be removed and it's good).
Speaking of which, the awful "customize" toolbar window is one of them (first thing I use in a windows software to get read of the 4 toolbars with 80+ buttons i won't ever use.... and make my own with the only useful buttons). That thing in visual studio/office is HORRIBLE. So if Vista could add an API to do it cleanly like in OS X or XUL/Firefox, i'd be happy.
Drag and drop. Even before Macos X, Macos had a much more decent support of it... and this might be because of the underlaying APIs... Hope Vista will fix it.
And the last one, I want a "usable" spacial file manager... even gnome has a decent one now! Windows XP has only a limited support for it, which was not improved much from Win95, and in fact it is so annoying that I simply disable it and end up like all windows user, having that Giant explorer windows with my directories on the right...
===
Now here's my list to Apple for leopard.
Make this fucking kernel run faster! Ok the 64 support bit is great (copied from M$
Second, i would like some kind of virtualization manager included in the OS/kernel... I remember connectix made apple add some features in MacOS X for their virtual PC (vmm API), which disappeared on x86. It was ok, wonder why Apple threw it away... I guess the VMWare and Parrallel folks will have "each" to write their own hooks in a kext.. and make their own stuff... I would like an OS integration feature with a GUI level for "virtualized" machines and all that built-in in leopard, even if there is no apple virtualized machines.
JFS support.
NTFS writing support.
Security, I want a sandbox environment that I can trigger and watch for every application I use. Something that's builtin in safari 3, but i would rather have a Finder option "lauch in secure environement". That thing should write logs of what the application is doing and so on... and this option should be used by default to open any e-mail attachment / safari downloads... And all the bad guys that gave interest to Apple lately would be even more disgustted by the cost of writing crippleware for Mac, and would return to their well loved platform... Microsoft. And Apple could still say in their ads "no virus" on mac.