Apple vs Microsoft Both Copycats

jdbartlett writes "Yesterday, we read Paul Thurrott's response to Apple's Leopard preview. In his TechBlog, Jim Thompson trims Thurrott's bloated opinion piece and presents an alternative take on four major new features, admitting that each may have been inspired but certainly not by Microsoft. Thompson ignores 6 features; some (Core Animation, Accessibility improvements) needed no defense, but perhaps not all Thurrott's points were invalid."

Comments

but it's all the same

[old and new again]

they all look alike,and for the best, it's just easier to learn and then switch...

Re:but it's all the same

[masklinn]

Last time I checked, service packs were more or less major security patch bundles, every release of OSX introduces new tools, refinements to the core OS itself and new technologies.

Sure they come often, but upgrade W2k from SP3 to SP4 (hell, upgrade W2k from original version to SP4) and you still have Windows 2k, nothing new under the sun, maybe your calculator's been updated if you're lucky.

Update OSX from 10.3 (Panther) to 10.4 (Tiger) and you're in for major changes, upgrade OSX from 10.1 to 10.4 and you've basically got a different OS. Which is why Ars manages to do 15+ pages full text reviews for each new iteration of OSX. There's just no way to do that with service packs.

Re:but it's all the same

[heffeque]

I'd give you points for better score if I could. You couldn't have explained it better. Bravo!

Re:but it's all the same

[JulesLt]

The thing that makes it complex is that Microsoft release new versions of Direct X and .NET out of sync with the operating system (and even IE when they can be bothered) - and to a degree these run on older versions of the OS.

With Apple it's the whole lot - end applications and programming APIs. I suspect this may start to change now that OS X is mature, and there is less need to generate cash from existing customers / more focus on new customers - i.e. we may see new APIs introduced in point releases at WWDC, rather than only with a major OS release.

Re:but it's all the same

[samkass]

I'm sorry, but anyone who simply calls Time Machine an "incremental backup" solution has lost all credibility. Yes, it's BASED ON an incremental backup solution, and it certainly offers that. But the real revolutionary concept here is that it provides a way for applications to look into their own past. You can go back in time WITHIN iPhoto, and look around at what your collection looked like a month ago. You can do queries in Address Book, and if you don't find a record you expect, go back in time and have it automatically find the first time the query returned something... WITHIN the Address Book application. And while browsing in the past, the application's UI is functional. Then, you can record just one record of the address book-- you don't need to pull an entire file to the present. And, of course, it'll be built in to every copy of their consumer OS with an auto-configured simple setup.

Thus, both Thurrott and this article appear to have largely missed the point in their attempt to show prior art here.

Re:but it's all the same

[7Prime]

I doubt it. Apple's current model has one major advantage: Simplicity. You don't have to put a whole bunch of individual requirements for a piece of Mac software, all you have to do is say "Requires Mac OS 10.4 or later", and you have everything in the bag. One of the things that Steve and Apple are trying to stress is simplicity and eligance. It's probably the first bullet point in the creation of "The Apple Experience", which is, virtually, the thing that continues to keep them alive and well. It's in all their product lines, it's in their marketting, it's in the very definition of what Apple can offer you. It also gives developers a break. Instead of constantly having a new thing to learn (a new graphics architecture, new OS commands, etc.) the learning is all done at the same time in one big push, but then lets the developers sit back and... well... develop, for the rest of the OSs cycle. It's part of Apple's cyclical business model: There is a season for learning the new features of the OS (tis the season to be jolly), and there is a season for getting down to business. Don't expect that to change any time soon.

Oh, and it also makes the releases that they do do, much more substantial. Every time they release a new OS X version, it's almost as big a deal as Microsoft releasing a new OS, because they are able to introduce everything that they've come up with since the last OS version, where-as a lot of the core additions to Windows are updated throughout the particular OS version's lifetime.

Re:but it's all the same

[JulesLt]

I thought Jobs said that after Leopard, they would be shifting to a 36 month timescale between OS releases? (That's the same timescale Ballmer hopes to achieve).

While there is a lot to be said for the big bang approach in terms of marketing, I think you do need to balance it against technical progress and changes in the market. 36 months would be a very long time between Safari 3 and 4, for instance. Not as long as IE6 to IE7 but possibly long enough to cause problems.

Re:but it's all the same

[crazzeto]

The service pack paul referred to specifically was Windows XP Service Pack 2, which by any standards *was* a huge improvement to how windows works, which included several new apps and features all of which were intended to combat the issue of malware which Windows was (and is) under seige from. You really can't be little that, something like SP2 would be a major effort for any tech company, including apple. Personally I think it'd be nice for the apple community if Apple started taking security that seriously and put a hold on shiny new features.

Re:but it's all the same

[7Prime]

That's a shame... I didn't read that, but it's a shame. I think having smaller, more frequent (one year or year and a half) upgrades is a better model for Apple at this point, not because it does the OS any better, but it allows Apple to keep themselves, and their computer line, fresh in the headlines, and at the forefront of computer discussions, more often.

Selling a product line is sort of like making up an RPG (either video game or table top), you feed the player little bits of goodies just regularly enough to keep them interested. 36 months can be the difference between Apple being at the top of everyone's "should look into" list, to eveyone thinking that they've gone under again. Then again, maybe Steve thinks their doing well enough, and are stable enough, that they don't need this.

I don't think it'll happen, realistically. I think what's bound to happen, after 10.5, is that they're going to be planning OS X11 (sorry, I couldn't resist). They'll release OS 10.6 or 10.9 (whatever they want to call it), about 8 months before hand, around late 2008, which will include a lot of preliminary libraries for the OS, without the big overhaul changes. After OS 11 does come out, we'll be back to where we were arond OS 10.2 with Jaguar (first really solid version of OS X), and we'll see a number of smaller, point-sized upgrades for the next few years. I think it's a better business model. But I do agree that, at this point, OS X is, aside from some minor finder GUI issues (come on Apple, this isn't rocket science!), pretty much as good as it is going to get.

Re:but it's all the same

[JulesLt]

>Then again, maybe Steve thinks their doing well enough, and are stable enough, that they don't need this.

I think it may be commercially driven, in that as Apple move into a more mainstream market, there will be more resistance to a 12-18 month cycle. Tiger has had a massive adoption rate, but I don't think you can depend on that going forward. Apple are returning to the market of people who won't even know there IS an upgrade.

Stability probably has something to do with it - 10.4 was the first release you didn't NEED to get, plus we can now see - retrospectively - Jobs plan for getting the business into a stable position. There is less need to generate cash and less urgency to push through the OS X migration (which has in turn, let them achieve the hardware migration).

Of course, there are other channels through which they can release 'upgrades' - i.e. Front Row and Photo Booth both seem more logically part of iLife than the core OS, but will help boost the feature count in Leopard.

OS XI - I do wonder if there is any thought going into it - what technologies would someone pick if they did a Jobs style 'walk in the wilderness' looking at University research? What programming language would they pick if they didn't already have Obj-C and the Cocoa framework? How much is Linux killing operating system research in Universities - i.e. who is funding it, other than Microsoft?

who cares?

[locnar42]

Does anybody really care if one of them copied the other?
Maybe Apple/Microsoft because they want to fight out patents. Personally, all I care about is which one does a better job of implementing the features I want.

Re:who cares?

[bcat24]

Indeed. Great developers steal, right? Maybe it's not good for Apple or Microsoft or their lawyers, but anything that generates a little competition (and maybe even a little bit of innovation) is good for the consumer.

Re:who cares?

[Ethan Allison]

What would you rather use, the product that came first or the one that's better? (Assuming this is after they both are on the market)

Re:who cares?

[krunk4ever]

On /. whenever Microsoft does something similar to OSX, there's never a shortage of response of "seen that on OSX already".

Re:who cares?

[DMouse]

The fact that apple gets to market with a new revision every 18 months probably helps in that one.

Re:who cares?

[scruffyMark]

What would you rather use, the product that came first or the one that's better?

Fortunately, you don't have to choose - OS X is both available now, and does a better job than Vista is ever likely to...

Re:who cares?

[Poltras]

Add to that the fact that they don't delay/cancel announced features, unlike that generic brand.

Re:who cares?

[larry bagina]

Copland. Pink. Taligent. Hell, the entire 90s. They're still delaying/cancelling features with OS X. The difference is, they're not pre-announcing them, and they're releasing minor updates.

Re:who cares?

[HeroreV]

If they're both open-source, I'll choose the one that's better regardless of who copied. If only one is open-source, I'll probably go with it regardless of who copied and which is better.

Re:who cares?

[HeroreV]

Generic brand? Microsoft Windows is not generic. That's one of it's problems.

"generic" is an antonym for "proprietary"

Re:who cares?

[tsa]

I would choose the one that is best at doing the job at hand, open sores or not. In a business envirenment that is the only thing that counts.

Re:who cares?

[tsa]

Oops I didn't mean to offend, that really was a typo. Open source!!! Not open sores. Sorry, should have previewed.


Grrr waiting period!!

Re:who cares?

[telbij]

Yeah, how easily we forget. But that's why I was on Windows in the 90s. Apple couldn't get shit out the door. It's probably more relevant to ask what was NeXT doing.

It's really not the delaying/cancelling of features that bothers me. It's that Microsoft deliberately overpromises as a marketing strategy. I mean Thurrott had his undies all in a bunch over the fact that Apple was taking credit for all these features they're putting into Leopard, but that's just marketing. Of course they're going to exaggerate. Head over the Windows marketing team and it's like, "How about 'Windows Vista will cook you breakfast in bed'". Is there any reason to listen to them at all? At least with OS X it does something like what the marketing claims. With Vista there's no reason to even think about it until its done.

Re:who cares?

[ajole]

Hearing about software companies copying each other reminds me of the US (fill in office here) elections. The candidates spend shiteloads of money trying to convince everyone that they should be hired, and for presidential elections it goes in the millions. Shouldn't everyone be trying to find the best person for the job? Seems like multi-million dollar campaign ads are a bit selfish.

I agree, who cares who copied who? I want to buy and use the best computer out there. This is a topic for the companies in question to worry about while assessing their buisiness practices, not the customers in any respect. Software is knowledge of process, and you shouldn't restrict knowledge of process, says this open source developer.

I HOPE EVERY OS HAS KICK-ASS SEARCH FEATURES AND MEDIA ACCESS AND STUFF!!

Re:who cares?

[Poltras]

Please reread my post:

Add to that the fact that they don't delay/cancel announced features, unlike that generic brand.

Re:who cares?

[larry bagina]

Copland. Pink. Taligent. Hell, the entire 90s.

Re:who cares?

[Poltras]

Ok you got me there :P Just because I never heard of them does not mean it's nonexistent (was young, drank a lot). Pink == Taligent though, so we're still at 2 ;)

For those of you....

[Punboy]

Who haven't had a chance to read it, you can see my lengthy response Thurrott at http://apple.krillrblog.com./ Its the main article there.

Re:For those of you....

[Punboy]

Troll? How is that a troll! I even just updated it to include stuff about the Techblog response! Alright, who modded that.

Re:For those of you....

[shawb]

They probably modded you as troll because of the link to your blog. There are ads at the bottom and the mod assumed that the primary reason you posted the ad was to generate traffic, not necesarilly contribute to the thread. Now, I have no idea what your intentions were, or whether the mod actually followed that line of reasoning, or whether the mod itself is a random troll or even a mistake (misclicked, intended to click another type of mod or even carelessly modded to wrong poast.) I'm just giving a possible reason for the mod.

Re:For those of you....

[kjart]

Troll? How is that a troll! I even just updated it to include stuff about the Techblog response! Alright, who modded that.

Well, I don't know about the argument, but I'd certainly mod the blog post about that. I love how arguments can just magically be dismissed nowadays by being 'FUD' (most overused acronym on Slashdot now?). "Hey, I don't agree with this guy - he's just trying to spread FUD!"

So lets count that as two major releases since 2001. Isn't that about on par with Apple's MacOS X?

That's really the gist of his argument. Apple is claiming 6 'major' releases since 2001, and Thurrott is pointing out that by the same standard Microsoft has released many 'major' releases as well. I like how your quote omitted "By that measure" at the very beginning - it certainly changes things in favor of your point of view.

You're right. It's a great idea. In fact, the innovative way they've implemented it makes it even better. Oh, whats that? Windows' interface to the same "feature" sucks? Thats right. Frankly the version in Windows 2003 Server is absolute crap.

Umm, so your rebuttal is that the interface on the Microsoft feature allegedly sucks? His point is that Microsoft did something similar in the past - you're not addressing that at all.

Thats right, a feature thats coming sooner, is being copied from software that will have it later.

Yeah, I guess you didn't read the part where he said "...Apple was inspired by Vista features like Spotlight (er, sorry, Windows Search).... But that's not a slam, really. Give Apple some credit for getting to market first--by a long shot--and doing a fantastic job of implementing features that Microsoft, frankly, may never get right." Windows search was announced long before Spotlight was implemented. Whether Apple necessarily borrowed the idea or not isn't as much the issue as the fact that Microsoft didn't borrow it from Apple - which is the point he's trying to make.

Its an optional service that has no place being mentioned with such prejudice on a page that's supposed to talk about Leopard.

When it involves a new feature for Dashboard it sure does.

Overall Mr. Thurrott you did a very good job of presenting innaccurate information in such a manner as to cause Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in the minds of Windows users and any others who may want to "switch." I commend you.

Overall you did a good job of selectively quoting material in such a manner as to cause Fear, Unvertainty and Doubt in the minds of...well, nobody with a grade 10 education.

Re:For those of you....

[Punboy]

About the categorization, I couldn't come up with something better. Can you? If so, tell me. I'd gladly change it. I agree, FUD doesn't quite apply.
Selective quoting? I copy/pasted his entire arguments. Didn't you read his article? And here you are, selectively quoting my blog and not pasting my entire argument. You're taking many of my remarks out of context.

Re:For those of you....

[crazzeto]

after reading your blog, v. Pauls blog nearly side by side, I'd say it's pretty obvious you quoted selectivly. You certianly did miss key remarks which dramatically alter the original intention of the remarks. You may wish to try comparing what you wrote, specifically quoted material v. Pauls origial statments.

Apple vs. Microsoft

[nacturation]

The argument that Thurrott advanced was that Microsoft had some of these features first. He doesn't claim that Microsoft was the inventor of those features. So along comes Thompson and outlines how various things in Unix did it first. Well, that's nice. But the debate here is between Windows and OS X, not Unix.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[Total_Wimp]

But the debate here is between Windows and OS X, not Unix.

Right you are, but I must take exception with your spelling. "grudge match" is not spelled d-e-b-a-t-e.

TW

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[rolfwind]

I believe that Thurrot advanced that Apple copies MS too (and not just the other way around), which implies that MS invented those features originally - otherwise Apple would be copying Unix as there is no way to know if they were copying a feature just because it was on Windows.

For instance, he said that MS had something like "Spaces" originally in some obscure version of NT which was never officially released, however anybody with any familiarity with Unix will have recognized that Apple probably got the idea for multiple desktops there rather than from MS. It's an insincere point.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[MikeTheC]

Hmm... I suppose you folks are correct in saying that, but when I saw the "Spaces" demo, My mind didn't go first to Microsoft's PowerToy-required-to-access multi-desktops feature, but to Linux's age-old, well-worn and incredibly useful Multiple Desktops function. If anything, I think Apple made some nice feature specific-UI improvements (just Apple being Apple, as they say). I got the same impression as the first article writer did about Time Machine: kinda tacky interface, but fundamentally very useful. Really, this whole premise of "Goodness! Apple copied Microsoft!" boils down to the saying that two wongs don't make a right. I agree with that premise.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[ZachPruckowski]

Ok, but here's the catch. You could have an OS that prints money for you, but if the end user can't figure it out, it's pretty useless. I think the real issue here is whether or not people or developrs can use the features, and in all the cases, Apple hit the homerun MS missed. When it's poorly-done version in a server OS, or a user-un-friendly feature in some Linux distros, it doesn't really help much, because no one can use it. The point is, out of the box, a mildy tech-inclined person (anyone smart enough to figure out how to download Firefox or iTunes w/o much help) can use Time Machine or Spaces. 90% of the market aren't gonna use it if they can't find it or can't figure it out. Look at Office 11 (yes, I'm going there, Thurott). One of the things I've heard is people finding "new features" in it, and MS getting credit for adding things when all it did was make them visible (not hidden 8 layers deep).

And spotlight compared to windows search? I'd say Sherlock probably beat Windows Search out, and Spotlight has the slight advantage of being near-instant (YMMV, I search 45-75 GBs on a 1.33 GHz G4).

And the big thing here is this: Apple is accusing MS of direct rip-offs (similar icons, similar UIs, etc) in addition to copying features, whereas Thurott is accusing Apple of having similar features to Windows.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[Senjutsu]

Well, if we're going to be pedantic: Thurrott's "point" was that Apple shipped features that Microsoft had previously announced but not shipped. The implication apparently being that Apple needed zero planning time for their features and can clone Microsoft features out of thin air faster than Microsoft can implement them.

In other words, it was classic Microsoft "our vapour tomorrow will be better than their shipping product today" FUD from the Internet's #1 Microsoft toady.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[LO0G]

The "obscure version of NT that was never officially released" was actually the very first version of NT, NT 3.1, which had multiple desktops. The problem was that there was no UI that allowed for the user to access them.

But the support has been in NT since the beginning.

Not that it really matters :)

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[dbIII]

For instance, he said that MS had something like "Spaces" originally in some obscure version of NT ... nybody with any familiarity with Unix

Remember that these people are not familiar with anything other than home computers - unix was something that the Moorlocks in the server room had to deal with while the tech journalists only noticed the home computers. Remember that these are the same losers that thought Microsoft invented the optical mouse just becuase they had never seen one before. You usually get more from the advertisements in PC magazines than the articles.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[PatMcKinnion]

OS X *is* Unix. BSD Unix to be precise.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[crazzeto]

Personally I think the point of the blog/artical/whatever was more so to express general fustration regarding apple and the apple communities smugness. Apple has some great products out there, but seriously... Tone it down a notch.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[LKM]

But the support has been in NT since the beginning.

Interestingly, the same seems to apply to Mac OS X. Tiger (and maybe previous versions) support multiple desktiops, but provide no UI, which is why there are lots of virtual desktop apps on macupdate.com - they don't really implement virtual desktops, they simply provide an UI to an existing feature.

Comprimise

[scolen2]

Windows copied the Mac OS, no one will dispute this, not even Bill. Mac is not duplicating windows at all, they are only makeing it easier for a PC user to switch. This comes directly from Steve. There is no benifit of the windows OS except its memory schemes, the new Mac OS is just a comprimise.

Re:Comprimise

[Anonymous Coward]

So when MS does it, it's copying. When Apple does it, it's for the benefit of the users. Riiight... Double standard anyone?

Re:Comprimise

[Ruff_ilb]

Actually, BOTH companies copied a GUI design that Xerox implemented a full NINE years before the Mac was even concieved.

"Xerox PARC was the incubator of many elements of modern computing. Most were included in the Alto, which introduced and unified most aspects of now-standard personal computer usage model: the mouse1, computer generated color graphics, a graphical user interface featuring windows and icons, the WYSIWYG text editor, InterPress (a resolution-independent graphical page description language and the precursor to PostScript), Ethernet, and fully formed object-oriented programming in the Smalltalk programming language and integrated development environment. The laser printer was developed at the same time, as an integral part of the overall environment."

Re:Comprimise

[scolen2]

Thanks for that NOVA Ep recap i saw 15 years ago. Apple didn't copy btw, they purchaced it along with the mouse that Xerox didn't feel was viable. The OS has matured a long way, and just like music its all about building upon the shoulders of giants. Apple did it better on the surface, and under the hood while Microsoft did it better in the engine.

Re:Comprimise

[GaryPatterson]

Apple *licenced* the UI elements from Xerox, who made quite a bit of money on the Apple stock they received.

Microsoft had no such agreement.

Apple also extended the UI from what Xerox had (have you ever seen a PARC in action? Clunky, horrible UI but with the germ of a good UI hidden within).

Re:Comprimise

[miro f]

they didn't just copy it... they Xeroxed it!

Re:Comprimise

[soft_guy]

I'm so sick of people bringing up Xerox Alto to zing Apple. You have never used a Xerox Alto - and you never will and you never would have even HEARD of the damn thing if Apple hadn't come out of the GUI. First, the interface on the Alto was very primite compared to the Mac. Second, Xerox would never have allowed the Alto - or anything else from PARC such as Ethernet or Smalltalk - to see the light of day left to their own devices. Third, many of the people who worked on the Alto came over to Apple to work on the Lisa and/or Mac. Fourth, many of the ideas that the Alto was based on came from Jef Raskin's PhD. dissertation (Jef Raskin started the Mac project at Apple). Fifth, Apple PAID Xerox 80 million dollars to use ideas from the Alto.

The fact is that there were people shopping some good ideas around Silicon valley at that time. Apple was the only company at the time with the guts to bring these radical ideas to market. Not Microsoft. Not Xerox. Not IBM. Not Digital Research (they made CPM and were a big deal at the time).

Re:Comprimise

[westlake]

BOTH companies copied a GUI design that Xerox implemented a full NINE years before the Mac was even concieved

The proof-of-concept design is not the same thing as a marketable consumer product.

Re:Comprimise

[Jherek Carnelian]

Clunky, horrible UI but with the germ of a good UI hidden within

You had such a great opportunity for a pun but wasted it on a wheat metaphor with that extra 'r', considering the history of GEM.

Re:Comprimise

[masklinn]

AFAIK the Alto and Dorado machines were not 'proof-of-concept' designs but production and productive environments, on of the guys on the core Macintosh team (Jef Raskin maybe?) had been an intern at PARC for 2 or 3 years, working in Smalltalk on altos and dorados (and "being spoiled by the environment" by his own words).

Re:Comprimise

[GaryPatterson]

Argh! The shame of it all!

Still, if I said every bad pun that came to mind, my wife would probably kill me. It'd be a fair cop though.

Re:Comprimise

[shakeedoo]

Now I'll admit, I'm far too lazy to google it either, but I'm pretty sure that the Alto 8000 and the Star were production models. While you were not likely to have used any product from PARC, it wasn't as much of an impossibility as the history books made it out to be.

So yeah, Xerox did have the guts to bring their radical ideas to market, they just weren't very good at it.

Re:Comprimise

[feline fanatic]

"Actually, BOTH companies copied a GUI design that Xerox implemented a full NINE years before the Mac was even concieved."

'Copied' would imply that Xerox never recieved a dime for their software from Apple. In point-of-fact, Apple bought Xerox's GUI software (one million shares of Apple stock was the price if I recall correctly), made significant improvements to it, and then Microsoft copied Apple's design under the guise that they'd like to develop software that would work with Apple's new user interface. Microsoft blatantly lied so that they could get hold of source code in order to develop their own GUI software (which was nothing more than a simple window manager) to run on top of DOS, better known as 'Windows.' You're correct, Apple did not develop GUI technology, but they didn't steal it like Microsoft either.

Re:Comprimise

[__aajqwr7439]

I'm so sick of people bringing up Xerox Alto to zing Apple.

Agreed. Here are some helpful links to throw at them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketchpad

DN

Re:Comprimise

[CCFreak2K]

Apple did it better on the surface, and under the hood while Microsoft did it better in the engine.

What's under the hood of my car? Oh gee, it's an engine! Who would've thought!

Re:Comprimise

[scolen2]

You are awesome at not understanding anything. You win!

Re:Comprimise

[soft_guy]

Obviously it would be nonsensical to say that no one in the world would have heard of something that did in fact exist and was built by humans. By stating that "you would never have heard of the damn thing" in the context of "bringing up Alto to zing Apple in some Mac vs. PC discussion thread", I was making an implied claim that people who were familiar with Alto either because they worked on it or in a manner similar to what you describe would not be trying to use the existance of the Alto to zing Apple. I should have been more clear about that.

Pundits, Copycats, and Asshattery

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps not all Thurrott's points were invalid.

Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

Re:Pundits, Copycats, and Asshattery

[mblase]

Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

Not anymore. Mine keeps reading "88:88" (and 88 seconds) ever since the LCD display got clobbered.

Re:Pundits, Copycats, and Asshattery

[Jherek Carnelian]

Not anymore. Mine keeps reading "88:88" (and 88 seconds) ever since the LCD display got clobbered.

Once we switch over to metric time, you'll be fine.

Re:Pundits, Copycats, and Asshattery

[wordsofwisedumb]

I think you mean "Even a broken analog clock tells the correct time twice a day."

Digital ones just predict the end of all time.

Re:Pundits, Copycats, and Asshattery

[lucifuge31337]

ever since the LCD display

Why don't you go down to the ATM machine and take out some money to buy a new one?

All Ideas Are Derivative-oreilly take new OS

[acomj]

I posted this before, but thought it was good enough to post again...

Oreillys radar's site take on the new features of the OS (by nat):

A good read actually:

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/apple_ea ts_whiners.html

64 bit unix "at least" 5 years old

[brokeninside]

Digital Unix on Alpha in the early nineties.

Re:64 bit unix "at least" 5 years old

[Tim Browse]

This is the part of all this nonsense I don't understand.

Making a nice interface onto a backup system (Time Machine) - yes, great. Tooltips, even - yes (read Alan Cooper on this - I can't be bothered to argue). Stuff like that is innovative and worth talking about.

Stuff like "Oh, we invented the 64-bit OS" or "We were the first to integrate wifi into our computers" - who gives a toss? Both are stepwise/obvious improvements to any competent practitioner in the field.

Oooh, you thought of using a 64-bit CPU to run your OS? How ever did you think of that? I mean, first we had 4 bit CPUs, then 8-bit, then 16-bit, then 32-bit...but you came out of left field and decided to use a 64-bit CPU? Fantastic!

You thought of putting another peripheral inside the main box?! Awesome!

I'm not having a go at you in particular, brokeninside, - 'you' here means anyone who claims to be first with such improvements and claim they're more amazing than they really are. It always seems a bit "I'll piss on your boots and tell you it's raining" to me.

The whole 'first' thing is kind of dumb. I once pointed out to a tedious Mac fan who had a website detailing just how great and 'first' Apple were with everything, that contrary to his belief, Mac OS was not the first OS to support anti-aliased fonts - Acorn's RISC OS pre-dated it, for one. He then told me that Apple were 'the first to make it mainstream'. Typical fanboy - when you come up against contradictory facts, just change your criteria.

(Apologies if I sound cranky - can't sleep...)

Re:64 bit unix "at least" 5 years old

[Burdell]

HP Tru64 Unix was previously known as Compaq Tru64 Unix, Digital Unix, and DEC OSF/1 AXP. It was a full 64 bit OS on the Alpha CPU, first released in 1992 (a couple of years before Apple switched from the 68K to the PPC).

I think OSF/1 on the Alpha may have been the first 64 bit Unix variant.

Interestingly, Tru64 is based on a Mach kernel, same as Apple's Mac OS X.

Re:64 bit unix "at least" 5 years old

[jamiethehutt]

Mac OS was not the first OS to support anti-aliased fonts - Acorn's RISC OS pre-dated it, for one. He then told me that Apple were 'the first to make it mainstream'.

In the mid 90s Acorns were more mainstream than Apples in the UK thanks to their heavy usage in Education. My first programing was done in BASIC on an Acorn in '98, come 2000 those labs had been swapped for PCs.

PCs where what most people had, Acorns were those ones from school and Apples we're weird graphics computers that no one in their right mind used unless they were some DTP guru.

That's changed now, almost every ones forgotten Acorn and Apples are the pretty computers from TV....

Re:64 bit unix "at least" 5 years old

[Tim Browse]

In the mid 90s Acorns were more mainstream than Apples in the UK thanks to their heavy usage in Education.

You don't have to tell me, I was there...tell the Mac fanboys :-)

Actually, Acorn is a good example of my point - Acorn did some innovative things, and did quite a few of them 'first'. After a while, though, people actually don't care that you were first. I used Acorn systems, and watched every one of Acorn's advantages gradually be eroded (except perhaps for their font system, which was superior for a long time) by PCs and Macs, while their own development stagnated.

Whining that you were 'first' with all these things, while true in some cases, doesn't actually get you very far in the long run. Ask Acorn. Still, it helps to cement the idea that your company is cool and trendy in some people's minds, which is probably the only reason Mr Jobs does it :-)

Re:64 bit unix "at least" 5 years old

[TCE-BFG]

"Making a nice interface onto a backup system (Time Machine) - yes, great."

Actually, it looks like a merging of a backup system and a version control system. No mention was given to the amount of space it'll take up, or whether you can archive off its database, two variables which will ultimately determine whether this is a revolution in user friendliness, or the world's biggest gimmick.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to use Subversion as I have done for ages now: it's free, has rather comprehensive administration options, tracks the who of file operations, tracks only the operations I'm interested in (as opposed to Apple's tool guessing on what, file write? Deletions only?), is cross platform, has Tortoise to integrate it into every Open/Save dialog and Explorer window in windows, a nice easy to read log view, and is free.

Both of them suck

[wheatking]

Both companies suck at caring for their customers. I wish Google will start making and selling consumer PC terminal thin clients that do not have any 'state' and do not require any local software to be loaded at all. the geekboys can battle out the oh so 90s choices. all i want are my applications and i really do not want to give a damn about the OS anymore.

Re:Both of them suck

[Mistshadow2k4]

When you have a problem with Google, try emailing them. Then you'll see how much more they care then MS or Apple. Experience has taught me that no major corporation really cares whether their stuff works as it should or not so long as profits are up; the only good customer service I've ever recieved was from small companies, with Newegg being the only exception.

Re:Both of them suck

[westlake]

I wish Google will start making and selling consumer PC terminal thin clients

The network appliance tanks whenever it is tested in the marketplace. Dell at entry level is under $400.

Re:Both of them suck

[wheatking]

It is not the cost that matters at all. Net app (in the late 90s) were all about offering a cheaper alternative. Now, the challenge is a low-cost-of-operation "appliance" that has no more "state" than my toaster. And the "Cost" I seek to minimize is the ongoing cost in time and $$ of updates, storage, backup, anti-virus, and sharing. I think in the long run, google is on the right track (and maybe Skyblue out of Stanford CS dept - see Monica Lam's work), broadband links are reliable enough and fat enough, and the customer-side operations-"cost" is well understood vs. capital cost of acquisition of hardware. Who knows, a wimax linked x-tunes/zunes/iPod may prove the model first but that "untethered" (as in software-installs and "state") PC is a coming me thinks.

Re:Both of them suck

[Firehed]

Probably because, by and large, internet connections in most places are far too slow to use such a product. Even things like remote desktop over LAN feel too laggy to be greatly useful, and that's a much faster connection than what most people have for internet. Designed properly, it'd be great, but our connections are going to need a lot of work first, especially if we even think about things like gaming with thin clients (encoding, streaming and then decoding high-def video in realtime, with low enough latency to have a playable setup? Don't hold your breath).

Re:Both of them suck

[JohnBeaulieu]

Remember the net pc's that failed in the late 90's? That is pretty much what you are asking google to produce. Sounds to me like what you are asking for is actualy more of an "oh so 90s choice", no offense intended.

Oh so familiar

[vinividivici]

"each may have been inspired but certainly not by Microsoft." Just like Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" was 'inspired' by Queen's "Under Pressure"

Re:Oh so familiar

[radiotyler]

And the award for most creative analogy involving both Vanilla Ice and consumer operating systems goes to....

VINIVIDIVICI!

Bravo, my friend. Bravo.

Re:Paul Thurrot

[dfghjk]

funny how the article didn't read like a shill piece but seemed rather objective. Every fallacy known to man? Perhaps you should lay off the hyperbole.

Regarding windows search, it took me all of a few seconds to find a column dated January 2004 that discusses it. Didn't read it but maybe you should: http://www.searchengineguide.com/hotchkiss/2004/01 12_gh1.html

Who's the shill here?

Re:Paul Thurrot

[hunterx11]

If one wants to be nitpicky about "stealing ideas," then both Windows Search and Spotlight are stolen from BeOS.

Three Skills Come To Mind

[buckhead_buddy]

Seeing the itemized list of who's providing what, made me think about why everyone thinks their "allegiance" is the one to do it right and to do it first. In general I think the trend is:

• Unix needs a bulletproof implementation
• Apple needs a bulletproof interface
• Microsoft needs a bullet point

That probably sounds negative to any of the three groups, but I think it explains more about why users don't "remember" that someone else perhaps did it first. An Apple aficionado who appreciates good user interfaces will never acknowledge anyone else as coming "first" after seeing the demo of Time Machine; there's just never been anything like it. But a Unix user will guffaw at the crash they had during the demo and state that they're the ones with the "first" version since they really see reliability as their cornerstone. As for adamant Microsoft users, it just seems to matter about when something was released rather than the quality. The next version may completely drop the interface or re-engineer the back end. But often these users can quote feature lists and continuity better than most Trekkies or Whovians.

In a lot of ways, I think there's a lot to be improved from all three camps. Make it work. Make it usable. And make it known. I think there are things each developer group can learn from the other, but advocacy will be self-selecting.

TechBlog is missing the point

[kjart]

It's not so much that Thurrott is claiming that Microsoft invented all of these features, it's merely a rebuttal against all of the Vista bashing that Apple indulged in. Thurrott is not claiming that Microsoft invented the 64bit OS (contrary to what TechBlog seems to think) - he's just saying they beat Apple to it.

Also, for those that seem to think this is all pro-Microsoft hogwash, the following came up within the first few paragraphs:

As Serlet effectively demonstrated, Windows Calendar is almost identical looking to iCal, right down to the candy-colored appointment blobs. That's just embarrassing.

He said that Vista's IE 7 stole the friendly RSS view from Safari, Apple's Web browser. And sure enough, he's got a point. I said so in my own reviews of IE 7 betas. It's a great feature, and Apple did it first.

Re:TechBlog is missing the point

[jdbartlett]

Those two statements were made so that Thurott could feign objectivity. Your second quote is worded as an admission: "he's got a point"=="touche".

That aside, you are correct: a hefty chunk of Thurott's piece was rebuttal of Apple's incendiary anti-Microsoft campaign. Specifically, it was a rebuttal of the claim that Microsoft copied Apple. TechBlog is simply explaining that both are copying (or rather, "taking to the next logical stage") older technologies.

Re:What about Leopard 64-bit?

[dfghjk]

If true, why is that important?

Supporting mixed models is not a new concept even if 64 bit itself hasn't been done. OS/2 did it, Win95 did it. Ultimately there is no reason for the end user to care.

It's been said before...

[thejeffer]

Everyone copies everyone. Microsoft copies Apple copies Linux copies Microsoft copies... you get the picture. If they want to be successful, they really have no choice. Consumers see a great new feature in one OS, they're going to start whining that theirs doesn't have it. So whoever writes that OS has to grit their teeth, suck it up, and copy that feature. Or alternatively, they can find a way to implement the feature in a way that's so much better, that whoever introduced it first is forced to turn around and copy THEM.

Copying is great for the consumer because it means we'll pretty much all get those snazzy features sooner or later. And if we don't, we'll just move on to whatever's better at the moment. Hooray for copycats!

Re:It's been said before...

[alfredo]

Reminds me of what Chet Atkins said about writing.

"Good writers borrow. Great writers steal."

Chances are, he stole the quote, but Chet Atkins was The guitar god. He can be forgiven.

Of course he probably orginated this observation:

When watching K D Lang perform on the TV at Brown's diner he says, "She's eaten more pussy that Porter Wagoner."

)

iChat

[cyborch]

Notice how in his iChat bashing he neglected to mention desktop sharing. Which I would also neglect to mention if I had to say that there were no major features. Adding desktop sharing is indeed a major feature.

Re:iChat

[ceoyoyo]

Not quite as major, but the presentation/video/photo thing is big too. Universities (well, mine anyway) is going gaga over teleconferencing and telelearning. You can see the Powerpoint slides and the speaker at the same time! These systems cost hundreds of thousands. They do the same thing, but not quite as nicely, as iChat in Leopard does. And they need a technician on each side to set up each conference.

Re:iChat

[ceoyoyo]

Ever been in one of those teleconference rooms? They've got a mic by each person, but they rarely work. None of the tele-lectures I've ever been in have used them -- they've used a single mic picking up everything in the room instead.

So iChat will allow multiple people to watch and listen to the conference. And it'll allow asking questions just as well as those classes I was in. Throw in a hardware mixer and you've got the whole deal.

Re:iChat

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding desktop sharing is indeed a major feature.

Yes it is... and Windows XP shipped with it. It's called the "Remote Assistance" feature and it's part of Windows Messenger. It's designed so that people can "chat with you, view your screen, and with your permission, work on your computer".

Here is a Microsoft tutorial, which dates from 2001.

Congratulations for catching up, Apple.

Re:iChat

[gyrogeerloose]

And I was using Timbuktu to do the same thing on System 7 back in the mid-nineties. Not a Apple invention, not a Microsoft invention either. As others here have already said, everybody copies.

Re:iChat

[rahrens]

March 14th, 2002, Apple announced the release of Remote Desktop for OS X. http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=58 Maybe not as early as 2001, but not as late as you make it out to be, either.

As other posts have noted, features like these are not the exclusive product of one mind, or one company. They are also not released overnight. Sometimes, a feature, or app, like this takes quite a while to make it through the lineup of suggested apps before it can even get to the beginning of being written. When that happens is a product of a company's "roadmap" of future products, as well as a strategic direction overall. Roadmaps also change over time in response to the market and where they see competitors going.

It is not always productive to play the "who got there first" game, regarding who may have "invented" a feature or product. The important thing to the industry is timing - XYZ company introduces product A - timing sucks, nobody sees a need for it - maybe it was badly implemented. Two years later, ABC company instroduces product B (a varient of A, but better impelmented, and better timed to meet the market's demand - and it takes off. The second company gets the credit. Why?

Better timing, better product, implementation, marketing and better at reading their customers' needs. Happens all the time.

Not everybody gets the credit they should. the principal of the fax was known, and a company started to sell a fax service between Paris and another big French city (I forget which one) in, I think, the 17th or 18th century. It failed, not because it didn't work but because nobody saw the need for the instantaneous transmission of data over long distances. Fast forward two or three centuries, and the market was ready when it was reintroduced in the mid to late 20th. But nobody remembers (almost) the name of the Scotish farmer that discoverd the principal that makes it work even today!

Life just ain't fair...

Who cares?

[Diordna]

All I care is that I get nifty new features. I could care less about this childish argument about "who thought of it first."

The OS X/Windows/UNIX feature cycle

[mblase]

1. Windows (or UNIX) implements a useful feature. It is kludgy, difficult to use, and powerful in the right hands.
2. OS X (or Windows) borrows the feature, puts a GUI on top of it, and trumpets it with the next release.
3. UNIX (or OS X) copies the feature, customizes the GUI, tweaks it a bit to make it more powerful, and mentions it in the next release.
4. Windows (or UNIX) copies the feature, integrates it into the OS completely, tweaks it a bit to make it less useful, and fails to mention it at all.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Re:The OS X/Windows/UNIX feature cycle

[jdbartlett]

Swap 3 and 1 and you've about covered it.

Re: Apple stole Alt-Tab and Fast User Switching

[radiotyler]

Suppose you lend someone a lot of money, they pay you back but still take that attitude towards you and insult you all the time? What would you call them?

I dunno. Canada?

Making Mountains out of Nothing

[astrosmash]

People in the Apple camp have to admit that Steve Jobs set Apple up for this kind of criticism when he playfully trashed Microsoft for copying OS X and then immediately proceeded to unveil new features in OS X Leopard that aren't necessarily all that new (although many are new takes on older concepts that have yet to be taken to the mainstream for any number of reasons)

On the other hand, the Microsoft fans have to admit that Microsoft too has set themselves up for criticism by being so far behind on Vista that a lot of its most compelling features have been around on OS X (and other platforms) for two years or longer.

There isn't anything more to say than that; there isn't much point in defending either of them. Apple takes a swipe at Microsoft (rightfully so) and the Microsofties feel compelled to defend poor old Microsoft; they take a swipe at Apple (rightfully so) and the MacHeads feel compelled to defend poor underdog Apple. Boring.

Re:Making Mountains out of Nothing

[ceoyoyo]

What's impressed me most between the two companies is which one keeps their promises. Microsoft promises all kinds of things in Longhorn/Vista and then slowly strips them out and delays them.

Apple usually doesn't say anything until they've already got the particular feature working. When they do pre-announce things they almost always come through. The one exception I remember is when they promised 3GHz G5s. Whether it's because of that failure or not, Apple switched to Intel after they failed to deliver on that one.

Despite comments about Apple and marketing, they don't suffer from the marketing-wags-the-company disease that seems to have infected most of the tech industry.

Re:Making Mountains out of Nothing

[MikeTheC]

Ok, but let's not forget that Microsoft's been promising the general public a "new" *coughbullshitcough* OS for years now, and hasn't delivered on it, other variations or feature-limited iterations notwithstading.

Let's also not forget that when Apple impliments (or invents) something, it does a far better job of making it intuitive to use than Microsoft or most of the rest of the Win32 developer community. They just dumb it down, candy coat it, put in big, colorful buttons and force-feed it down the public's collective throat.

Re:Making Mountains out of Nothing

[prockcore]

The one exception I remember is when they promised 3GHz G5s.

That's because Apple got burned badly with Copland. 10 years of development, announcments, product demos, development releases, and they had nothing to show for it. They'll not make that mistake again. That's why we find out years later than Apple has had an x86 OSX all along... they've been planning a switch to x86 for years.

Re:Making Mountains out of Nothing

[ceoyoyo]

So Apple learned their lesson about making promises you can't keep. Think MS will? Weren't they talking about something called Cairo around the same time Apple was shooting their mouths off about Copland?

Re:Making Mountains out of Nothing

[topham]

I doubt they planned to switch to x86 for years.

NeXT ported ther OS to x86 a long time ago, but it didn't do them any favors. (It didn't help tht the hardware requirements were extremely specific and virtually nobody could run it. (The only person I know personally who ran a copy worked at a computer shop and had purchased the best equipment he could at the time, helps when you get significant discounts). OS/2 ran on significantly more hardware than the Intel version of NeXT.

Since NeXT ported their OS from 68K to x86 long before the integration with Apple; and they had to port to PPC platform they have a certain mount of skill in maintaining it across platforms. This allowed Apple to hedge their bets and just keep moving the OS X kernel forward and make sure it runs cross-platform. When it became apparent that IBM couldn't keep up their end of the deal they simply changed platforms.

Keeping the OS platform neutral was in their interest for catching and reducing bugs anyway. If the code works on one platform, and not the other and it shouldn't be relying on platform specific behavior it is obviously a bug. (Obviously certain code, particularly in the kernel is platform specific).

I still doubt they had planned 'for years' to switch to x86. If IBM had been able to push the G5 line as fast as they had promised Apple I doubt they ever would have switched.

Re:Making Mountains out of Nothing

[masklinn]

I doubt they planned to switch to x86 for years.

As GP said, they've had working x86 versions of OSX zipping along for a few years 'just in case', and you can be sure that somewhere in Cupertino they're running OSX versions for fully unsupported processors just in case they have to switch again one day.

Re:Making Mountains out of Nothing

[jiushao]

Like when Apple promised to replace MacOS with a modern OS (with a microkernel and an OO platform SDK no less) in 1991 (here I am referring to "Pink", which ended up being spun of as Taligent when it failed to materialize in development, which were then to be partly reused in the even later Copland). Slamming Microsoft over the Vista delays is fine and all, but Apple does have a pretty damn legendary series of delays, trashing of feature-lists and restarts behind them before managing to release OSX in 2001. Big software projects just seldom go according to plan.

Re:Making Mountains out of Nothing

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, the screwed up Apple of the 90's did seem to make a lot of promises they couldn't keep. It seems they either learned their lesson or Steve Jobs put and end to it. Either way, I wish a few more companies would take a cue. Nintendo seems to be pretty good, Sony and MS not so much so. When a major company makes a product announcement you shouldn't have to wonder if it's vapour or not.

The $150Mil settlement

[Shawn Parr]

Conveniently most people don't remember, or never realized at the time that there was a patent dispute. Part of the $150 million deal was a patent cross licensing deal.

So let's look at facts:

1. Microsoft buys $150 million in non-voting stock
2. Apple had way more money in cash at the time (thus rumors of their demise were...)
3. Apple gets access to Microsoft Patents and Microsoft gets access to Apple patents (which is one reason why Microsoft can make their new apps look a lot like Apple's I would guess)

This is what I think most people would refer to as an out of court settlement, politically twisted to look like a political gesture.

Re:The $150Mil settlement

[burns210]

Extra bonus points for mentioning that Microsoft sold the stock not long after the investment for a profit. The deal was entirely symbolic outside the pantent dispute resolution that you mentioned.

Also, the Office and IE applications were part of the same dispute. IE as the default browser, even, was also decided in this whole mess. It was a (I believe) 5 year agreement to keep supporting Office and other applications on the Mac platform which has since ended and been renewed in spirit by the Mac BU publicly at a previous WWDC. It is not often realized that Microsoft is one of Apple's closest, largest and most successful third-party developers, and both benefit greatly from the relationship. The light-hearted jabbing the Steve Jobs does makes it appear otherwise to those not entirely in-the-know.

Re:The $150Mil settlement

[Shawn Parr]

All that is precisely what makes the settlement so brilliant. Everyone won.

Microsoft got a get out of jail free card, plus a way to make a profit on their settlement.

Microsoft also got rights to keep Internet Explorer 5 as the Mac default browser (this was before Safari), and as wacky as it sounds, it was the best browser on the platform at that time.

Apple got to show a commitment from one of their largest developers that was rather long (5 year commitment for software). Plus they got to show off by having a company that is supposedly their #1 enemy say that the Mac platform was so great that they were willing to do all of those things.

This is one case were Steve's Reality Distortion Field worked in both Apple's and Microsoft's favor.

Re:The $150Mil settlement

[Lars T.]

You forgot to mention that the reason why all this happened was that "somehow" Apple code (from Quicktime) showed up in Microsoft products (parts of Video for Windows) - code, not just ideas.

I'm Visually Impaired

[TheZorch]

Text to Voice support in Windows XP is dismal to say the least. The built-in text-to-speech softrware is a joke. It works yes, but only in Microsoft applications.

There is a 3rd party software package called "JAWS" which costs around $400 - $500, is locked down with DRM so if you have to reinstall your system or upgrade you have to reactivate it. Also, the software is very picky as to what kind of video card and sound card you have, and its prome to crashing. The software had also been none to deactivate itself for no reason, thus requiring you to reinstall it and reactivate it.

I looked at VoiceOver in Mac OS X and I was very impressed. Someone with no vision at all (I have some, I just need an extra large monitor) would have little trouble navigating the system using it. I know a few people with no vision at all and they were also extremely impressed with Voice Over, and I know at least one person who will benefit from Mac OS X Leopard's support for Braille displays. Also, the APIs and tools needed to make Mac OS X apps work with Voice Over are freely available to developers so any Mac app can be made Voice Over compatible with minimal effort. For JAWS its much harder.

Re:I'm Visually Impaired

[Senjaz]

More bonkers moderation from the slashdot crowd. More primative command-line or menu driven interfaces can be more accessible to those with disabilities, whether visually impared or having severely impared motor function.

Voice Over however is an excellent piece of software. Right now it's definitely targeted at those with reduced vision rather than those with no sight.

Will have to wait for the ADC mailing of Leopard to see how it's been improved.

Beginning of the Post-Windows Era

[copponex]

Looking on the horizon, it seems to me that early 2007 will determine the next five years of the computing industry. If Leopard is introduced on time in conjunction with an office suite (Microsoft or a truly comparable replacement) and the Adobe Suites as native applications, Microsoft is in serious trouble. Apple will have delivered on all of their promises; the industry will have supported their move in the form of third party applications, and Microsoft is going to look slow and stupid. Vista is going to suck early - there's no doubt about it. They're already talking about things they are "saving" for SP1.

When all of this happens, the other shoe will drop when business owners and business managers begin asking: Why is there no search feature on our corporate network that works like Spotlight on my kid's computer? Why is it so difficult for our marketing department to create a podcast, when my nephew can do it on his laptop in 15 minutes? Why do my wife's e-mails look better than the ones from my office? Why can't I get that spreadsheet back like I can on my computer at home? I can't video conference?! My kids do it all damn night on their computers!

Apple is trying to reach out and grab the teenage and college demographic, because no matter how smart an adult thinks they are, they never want to look stupid or "old" to their kids. If Apple can pull it off, it will be the beginning of the post-Windows era, when Microsoft's marketshare falls below 75%, the competition heats up, and software companies begin to deliver programs that actually save time and money for everyday office work.

Re:Beginning of the Post-Windows Era

[prockcore]

If Apple can pull it off, it will be the beginning of the post-Windows era, when Microsoft's marketshare falls below 75%, the competition heats up, and software companies begin to deliver programs that actually save time and money for everyday office work.

Apple will get out of the hardware business and make an OEM OSX for Dell and HP long before Apple ever gets 25% of the market.

Re:Beginning of the Post-Windows Era

[palad1]

You are right. Might I add that even CEO were college kids at one point. Now THAT is long term planning ;)

Re:Beginning of the Post-Windows Era

[k23k]

No, I think a majority of the Mac's appeal is the 'cool' design of the hardware.

Also, I think the Mac and OSX team want to have full control on both the hardware and the software that goes out with the Apple brand on it. The NEXT OS team got their fingers burnt in the early 90's when they moved the NEXT OS onto PC boxes and Apple lost hardware revenue when they licensed OS9 to OEM's.

The senior people at Apple lived through those events and I can't see any preasure from investors to change strategies at the moment.

Re:What about Leopard 64-bit?

[Gryffin]

Supporting mixed models is not a new concept even if 64 bit itself hasn't been done. OS/2 did it, Win95 did it. Ultimately there is no reason for the end user to care.

Please note that these new features, including full 64-bit/32-bit mixed-mode compability, were announced at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference, not the World Wide Users Conference.

So while you're correct that it may not be a big deal to users, users weren't the audience. To the developers who want or need to code 64-bit applications, it's a big deal indeed.

He he he

[XnavxeMiyyep]

He he he, cats!

Apple is just another Unix vendor

[Foerstner]

the debate here is between Windows and OS X, not Unix.

OS X is just a peculiar Unix distro.

I find it fascinating that Linux can borrow BSD features, and AIX can mimic Solaris features, but when Apple steals a feature for its particular Unixling, it's a big event.

Re:Apple is just another Unix vendor

[nine-times]

People make a big deal about stealing other Unix features because, when other unixes impliment the feature, it's some obscure CLI think that only uber-geeks can get working in a practical manner. When OSX does it, there are fancy animations that make the common folk go "ooooh" and "aaaaaah".

Re: Apple stole Alt-Tab and Fast User Switching

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

What would you call them?

I'd say a bank client!

Re:Paul Thurrot

[paintswithcolour]

The Windows Search thing does puzzle me though...I'm unclear how he knew that Apple wasn't working on it before MS annouced it, but merely annouced it after them?

I'm not sure I really care though.

This simple fact is Apple delivered through on their tech promise. People seem critical of the 'cards close to the chest' attitude at times from Apple but it seems to work out a lot better than the MS Vista approach. Lots of promises, fewer in the delivery, stuff to come later (i.e more promises). Spotlight/Windows search is a perfect example, if they were talking about it in Jan 2004, why aren't we using it now or why isn't it shaping up to be better than Spotlight?

Re:What about Leopard 64-bit?

[dfghjk]

"If so, this is breaking news, as no other 64-bit OS out there allows that."

and I say again "So what?" Why is it important, "breaking news", that OS X allows that? It would be breaking news if it didn't.

I suppose the argument being made is that it's amazing that Leopard won't require all drivers to be rewritten? Why is that a surprise?

"To the developers who want or need to code 64-bit applications, it's a big deal indeed."

Are we talking drivers or applications? Application developers would expect the Apple tools to "deal with that" while driver developers will have to concern themselves with the details of the implementation. You seem to be mixing the two rather freely.

Users won't care if drivers are 64 bit or 32 bit. They will care that they work and that they're available. Application developers, meanwhile, aren't involved. "A big deal indeed"? I don't think so.

The original post was just searching for something new to crow about. Sorry, but it's nothing new or even surprising. Perhaps the problem is that I've actually written drivers for mixed environments before...

Konfabulator

[JM Apocalypse]

Why is everybody saying that Apple stole widgets from Konfabulator? In actuality Apple had widgets in System 6ish (I don't know the exact number) under a different name. If you want to be technical it could be said that Konfabulator stole the idea from Apple. In reality Konfabulator improved on an existing idea and Apple improved on it further.

Re:Konfabulator

[prockcore]

In actuality Apple had widgets in System 6ish (I don't know the exact number) under a different name.

Are you talking about Desk Accessories? Sorry, those are nothing like Konfabulator widgets.

Desk Accessories were just little programs that used ROM tricks to enable a really poor pre-emptive multitasking.

Widgets were closer to Active Desktop than anything else.

Re:Konfabulator

[Phibz]

I believe you're refering to "Desk Accessories" I had these on my MacSE running System 5. I don't know but they were probably around before that.

I don't care...

[posterlogo]

...who did it first or who copied who. Didn't we just have this same thread a couple of days ago at Slashdot (seems like everyday now, we have to rehash this debate -- the original post should be marked troll). All I care about is who does it better. Apple wins. Period.

Re:Paul Thurrot

[Space cowboy]

Yeah, but at least Apple hired the original engineers :-)

Simon

Re:Paul Thurrot

[dfghjk]

This is the relevant quote in the article:

"He said that Microsoft was ripping off Spotlight with Windows Search in Vista, which in fact, had been developed and publicly discussed long before Spotlight ever saw the light. (To be clear, Apple borrowed that one from Microsoft, but implemented it much more quickly.)"

Your question is valid and I don't know if he can justify his second claim. It is clear, though, that Microsoft was planning search functionality before Apple publicly disclosed Spotlight.

"Spotlight/Windows search is a perfect example, if they were talking about it in Jan 2004, why aren't we using it now or why isn't it shaping up to be better than Spotlight?"

Because developing Windows is much different than developing OS X?

I don't know if Windows Search is or isn't "shaping up to be better than Spotlight" but I do know that Windows concerns are much different than OS X ones. The application base is much larger and more diverse, there is compatibility baggage and the user expectations are different. It's also clear that MS's developers and methods are not the same as Apple's for better or worse. To attribute any differences to "close to the chest" is silly. MS soliticited customer feedback for future plans and now you're slagging them for it? Perhaps you're just upset that doing so provided proof that Search wasn't a ripoff of Spotlight.

The fact is that developing features takes time and companies often develop similar ideas and technologies side by side. Claiming that these two companies rip one another off is frequently overdone and global search is a classic example. Neither company stole the idea from the other.

Re:No no no...

[dkarma]

MS stole their gui originally from Xerox back in the day they stole DOS (practically) and turned it into MS-DOS. Microsoft hasn't had an original idea since...well ...ever. Down w/ M$. As for new OS when it comes to switching to Vista....NEVARRR!!! I'm going Linux and not looking back. I'll probably never use a mac unless I have a lobotomy or lose my middle finger for right clicking...

All the talk about copying ignores innovation

[DECS]

Rather than trying to establish who came up with an idea, I'd like to see more attention given to new, innovative ideas. I'd like to see Microsoft, Apple, and open source groups copy each other's good ideas as much as possible. Good ideas deserved to be copied!

RoughlyDrafted Magazine has articles on what's really new in Time Machine in The Time Machine Rip-off Myth,

explained what new stuff Thurrott overlooked in WWDC Secrets Paul Thurrott Hopes You Miss,

and gave Three Reasons Why Microsoft Can't Ship (and Apple can).

The RDM Paul Thurrott story was dugg 1300+ times today!

Re:All the talk about copying ignores innovation

[*SECADM]

how about superfetch? introducing heuristics and statistical models into the OS seems to be the next evolutionary step in OS designs. It has been something people have talked about a lot in CS, and MS seems to be the first to bring it to the table as far as i know.

or, what about infocard? the identity infrastructure MS is building that Lawrence Lessig says is on the right track to "save the net"? it seems to be a pretty innovative way to tackle a big problem from the ground up.

or perhaps bitLocker, the data protection technology MS is creating to bring volume wide encryption into the OS? The idea might not be super new but the way it is implemented (being optionally hardware-based) seems to be pretty innovative.

There are also various other features, like "readydrive" utilizing nvrams to boot faster (innovative usage of new hardware); the "breadcrumb bar" that brings a new UI element into the desktop shell; "sideshow" which works together with new innovative hardware components... none of these seem like rehashing of old ideas from unices or macs. perhaps they might make good feature candidates for apple to start their photocopiers on in cupertino?

check out the list of new vista features on wikipedia.

Re: Apple stole Alt-Tab and Fast User Switching

[ceoyoyo]

Spoken like someone from the country with one of the largest trade deficits in the world.

OneNote Notes (Mail)

[jimmyCarter]

The one app that I thougth they really parrotted was MSFT's OneNote. Their new "Notes" in Mail is very similar, but of course more refined in that Apple way.

You could make an argument that OneNote certainly had it's predecessors as well, but certainly not in the rich graphical way that made OneNote so neat when it came out.

I did just that

[jdbartlett]

I had a problem with Google Base (a free Google service) a few nights ago and sent an e-mail. Next day, I received a personal reply (not a bot response) from a Google Team member thanking me for my e-mail, letting me know the issue had been resolved, and asking me to let him know if I had any other questions.

In general, though, I agree. The best customer service e-mail response I ever received was from Bare Bones Software, the company that makes BBEdit. I wasn't e-mailing about a BBEdit issue, though. I was e-mailing with an issue concerning their free (and excellent) TextWrangler text editor. I received a personal response (again, not a bot) within the hour with instructions on how to solve my issue.

Re:I did just that

[Phroggy]

Yeah, Bare Bones has excellent support, I've reported several bugs to them (a couple were my own mistakes) and not only do I get a personal response, but usually the bug is fixed in the next release (and the release notes contain a complete list of everything they fixed in each version). Sometimes they've sent me a beta version to verify that the bug has been fixed before releasing it to the public.

Everything is stolen nowadays

[jdbartlett]

"Why, the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached!"

Price Factor

[Klanglor]

Its true, when i saw the time machine i was like euhh volume shadow copy and the notes i was like euhh outlook! but now on a 2nd thought. there is a big price factor!!!!! Outlook is like 400$ c'mon its like crazy 400$ for outlook, word, excel and power point. ( i do give credit to excel to be worth a good 200$ but the rest. c'mon) and plus you are off to a good 5000K for VSC. i mean with the stupid CAL fee windows skyrockets. ( SERVER, ROUTER, LICENSE, ETC) well MAC OS X is 150$. that not even the 250 from microsoft. Beside, Microsoft screw up big time. true OS X is still OS X nothing major. Windows 95-98 :) they do the same and people would not have mind much to have windows 2002, 2004, 2006. its just that they anounced 2002 as longhorn and they can't deliver. Apple got smart, they don't announce what they haven't made yet. so they always seems to be ahead of schedule. and can release half of the whole. i guess steve job learned from his past failures, like the next. release bit by bit is more profitable.

Re:Price Factor

[masklinn]

when i saw the time machine i was like euhh volume shadow copy

No you weren't, and if you were you either don't know what Volume Shadow Copy is or you don't realize what Time Machine is poised to do.

Re:Price Factor

[Klanglor]

I was thinking about volume shadow copy on the first few minutes and thats when he said restore the past.
so your comment has no bearing, of course the first few minutes i could not realize what time machine could do, he didn't said it yet. lol :)

Konfabulator nothing like Desk Accessories

[jdbartlett]

That's much more of a stretch even than Thurott's Windows Search vs Spotlight arguments. Konfabulator bears little resemblance to Desk Accessories. Dashboard's JavaScript-based Widgets, however, are extremely (even suspiciously) similar to Konfabulator's. Apple saw an application ripe to become an OS feature and cloned it. Perhaps this is seen as morally indefensible, that's the only reason I can think of for Apple fans perpetuating the "Desk Accessories" squirm story.

gentlemen start your attacks!

[edwardpickman]

I'm shocked at the barrage of attacks on Apple over the last few days. Seems like the keynote struck a nerve with the PC world and Slashdot has taken the side of the attackers. I've used Microsoft products almost exclusively since the late 80s but in the last two months started the migration to Mac and I couldn't be happier. I don't care about statistics I care about real world use and Mac programs rarely crash. Windows apps constantly crash. For me case closed. For the first two months I rarely used the OSX built in applications but I'm using them more and more every day. I've never seen anything like them on any release of Windows and Leopard blows away Tiger. I can install software without closing open applications because of their mirror install system and I generally keep a dozen or more apps open. The hardware is excellent and the OS is stable. OSs are like religion so people feel they have to depend theirs. Personally I'm a heretic. I'll use what works. Mac works and Windows simply doesn't. I was promised XP Pro was more stable but it's no more stable than Win 2000. I spend half my time with XP turning things off. It constantly demands I update things, if I put a disk in the drive it insists on helping me open it. It wants to do things for me but 9 times out of 10 it's wrong about what I need to do so it's just a hassle. I have none of that trouble with Mac. If you enjoy fighting to get software to install properly and don't mind all the crashing stick with windows, you won't be happy with Mac. The lack of viruses and easy installation means all you are left with is using the software. I'd just love to see some more balanced reporting. Jobs may have been making fun of Microsoft but as some one that struggled for years with Windows there's a lot to make fun of. Fix the OS, stop the crashing before you worry about catching up to Mac feature wise. OSX had some growing pains, gee that never happened to Microsoft (cough) ME (cough). Now they have a rock solid powerful OS. Microsoft has a DLL house of cards.

the debate itself is stupid

[m874t232]

But the debate here is between Windows and OS X, not Unix.

Why the hell would anybody care whether Microsoft or Apple puts a feature into their OS a few months earlier?

The two things that matter are:

(1) Who invented the feature in the first place, because those are the people we want to give our money to so that they can come up with more good stuff.

(2) If it's a useful feature, how can we make sure that everybody copies it as quickly as possible? Yes, it is beneficial to users if Windows, OS X, Gnome, KDE, and all other desktops quickly converge on the most useful features and UI standards so that people can switch between them easily, competition drives down cost, and companies are forced to come up with something new again.

Note that (1) is usually neither Microsoft nor Apple; so, if you think you're doing something for innovation and the betterment of the world by buying Apple products, think again. Buy Apple because they make well-designed products. But when it comes to innovation, Apple has been pretty much thriving for the past two decades on being a cheapskate and a copycat.

Core Animation looks an awful lot like Flash

[Animats]

Apple's "Core Animation" looks like a scheme for developing apps with a Flash-based GUI. Video games have been doing that for years; in many games, the user interface is authored in Flash, but displayed with a third-party Flash player built into the game. For that matter, developers have been able to put Flash-based GUIs into Photon applications for QNX since about 2001. So this isn't exactly a new idea.

Did Apple provide any useful guidance for developers on what a GUI developed this way should look like, or is every app going to have some different approach?

Re:Core Animation looks an awful lot like Flash

[zizdodrian]

Keyframe and layer based animation models have been around a *lot* longer then flash. In fact, those concepts have been in use since cartoons were manually created using the cell animation procedure. The 3D addition to this animation style isn't anything new, either, but what is new is the combination - a keyframe based, 3D scripting model into which can be embedded other models, like Quartz Compositions (something which flash couldn't touch, especially as a 2D animation scheme) and videos, and that is easily accessible through OS wide APIs. They might be slightly similar in that they both use keyframes and layers, but who doesn't these days?! Animation is animation. Core Animation isn't flash by any means. With all due respect, the comparison was slightly misguided.

Copying is good, yet should still keep track of it

[LKM]

First of all, copying is good. We would still be trying to make fire by randomly hitting stones against other stones if we weren't allowed to copy other people's innovations (which, by the way, is why I think Patents hinder progress rather than helping it). It's good that Apple's copying virtual desktops from Unixes. It's good that Microsoft is copying the trash can from Apple. It's good because:

1. It makes software more consistent with each other, helping users adjust (e.g. if only Adobe didn't had those stupid tab patents, palettes would wore more consistent throughout applications)
2. It means that no single company can have one huge idea, not let anyone copy it and then rest on its laurels, letting their system stagnate - there's permanent pressure from their competition because they can take this huge idea and maybe even improve on it
3. It means that in a Darwinism of Ideas, good ideas will spread while bad ideas tend to die, which improves the ecosystem as a whole

So in general, there's nothing wrong with copying because it makes the ecosystem as a whole better.

Yet, all this being said, it is good to keep track of who is mostly innovating and who is mostly copying, and reward the innovators with your money. That way, you put the money where it will be used for further innovation. You reward the innovator. You accelerate the improvements already happening.

Paulis a moron

[carl0ski]

am i the only one who finds the comparison between OSX versus windows XP version releases cycle pathetic Jobs was quick to tout the progress Apple has made with its OS since 2001, when both Windows XP and the first version of OS X shipped. "What have we been doing for the last five years?" he asked. "We've been putting out releases of OS X." 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. Heck, I might be missing some versions. No, they're not all major releases (The N Editions? Eh.) But XP x64, like Tiger on Intel, was a major engineering effort. And Apple has nothing--absolutely nothing--like the Media Center and Tablet PC functionality that Microsoft has been refining now for several years. So let's put the silliness about Microsoft doing nothing for five years to rest, shall we? I personally dont feel XP has improved as much as OSX. I used OSX first release afew years ago its currently completely different. On the other hand Windows XP features are static since its release, it doesnt esentially do or offer anything previous versions didnt. I still fail to believe SP2 was a major over haul it was bugfix roll up and smarter default system configuration policy. If it came with a new DirectX or Desktop search was integrated it would have been different. Firstly Home and Pro were released together and is essentially one XP Product Pro (Home being a cut down version). SP2 came along XP home was rebranded Embeded and starter editions. Adding a New Windows Media Player Version doesnt justify calling Windows XP PRo aka Media Centre a major upgrade Windows X64 took a year so why is Apples 210 day timeline to port to a completely different architecture so unbelievable. P.S i'm not as bias i use linux at home and maintain 200 Windows PC's at work inc XP home , Pro , SP2, and Windows 2000. And MAC OSX is rediculously expensive but thats the price of the feature upgrades of versions.

Re:Paul Thurrot

[foo12]

Did BeOS index the file contents? It's been about seven years since I last used Be, but I still have a couple BeOS shirts. (And if you really want to get technical, Apple had a precursor to Spotlight back in 1997 with its V-Twin text indexing engine.)

Re:What about Leopard 64-bit?

[TheNetAvenger]

read it allows 32-bit modules (i.e. drivers) to load on a 64-bit kernel. Is this true?
If so, this is breaking news, as no other 64-bit OS out there allows that.


If Leopard truly runs as a 64bit OS and allows 32bit drivers, then this is good for Apple, but hardly earns them the innovation of the century.

The fact is, many OSes have done this over the years, and it is not revolutionary. Even Windows95 could load 16bit drivers in addition to 32bit drivers.

My real question here is, how much of Leopard 'really' is a 64bit OS? Are ANY of the drivers really 64bit, or is the kernel mode they are running in, still a 32bit environment?

The reason that this seems really suspect, is the Intel based MacBooks are running on a 32bit CPU, no 64bit whatsoever. So is there separate versions for the MacBooks, or is Leopard once again trying to pretend to be a 64bit OS, like Apple touted OSX as 3 years ago, when it wasn't?

I honestly don't know the answers to these and the specs I could find don't seem to be very clear on this. But this will give my techs something to research.

Microsoft debated on whether to let the x64 version of Windows do a mixed mode 32bit driver support, and the team chose to abandon 32bit drivers for several reasons. One of them hoping to force hardware vendors to write 'better' drivers. I wonder if Apple truly has adopted the duality model if MS will rethink adding back in a 32bit compatibility driver layer in x64. Could mean good things for both sides of the industry if it is something seen as a 'good thing'.

One did copy the other...

[bky1701]

Clear as day. See the proof, "they both suck". Who started it is hard to say, though...

Re:One did copy the other...

[chris.evans]

Steve Jobs saw the results of Xerox machine and GUI and the rest is history. :-) But that is how science is made the results of new ideas are built on the backs of the previous that come before and thus progress and discoveries can be made. --chris

Re: Apple stole Alt-Tab and Fast User Switching

[GaryPatterson]

If it were even remotely true, it would be a good point.

At the point Microsoft *bought* $150M of Apple non-voting stock, Apple had around $4B in cash sitting in the bank (well, liquid assets and cash).

The promise to keep Office on the Mac was *far* more important than a few dollars, and most commentators saw that at the time.

You need to research your history, and yes, your post should be modded down because it's just plain wrong.

Useless Argument

[BrainRam]

Even CoreAnimation is not beyond the "copying" argument. Microsoft shipped DirectAnimation years ago. Here's a link to the press release.

But this entire argument is completely useless. There are a number of skills at play when it comes to building and shipping any techology. First, a company needs to see an opportunity. Then, they need to design the right product for the market. Then they need to implement the product so that it can be easily used and make sure it's flexible enough that users can mould it into their products. Finally, the technology must be correclty marketed.

Fail at any of these, and you'll end up with a technological dead end. But that doesn't mean that somebody else didn't see the need as well, or that somebody else might not implement a better framework. That's supposed to be the beauty of our industry. There is room for competition and innovation, and no two products will hit the exact same sweet spot with a user base.

It doesn't matter who did it first. It matters who does it best for you. If I'm forced to code only on Linux, then I can tell you that CoreAnimation is not the technology for me. So I'll be looking for some competition. If I get to use OS X, I'm sure CoreAnimaiton will be useful. And if I'm on Windows, welll, DirectAnimation is dead. So I guess I'm screwed.

I don't care who was first, or who copied who. I need techology, and the capabilites of any library or feature I can use are highly dependent on the capabilities of the platform itself. If my OS provider can keep rolling out new features that help me write better software, I'm all for it. Even if they are copying somebody else. Where would any art form we have today be without the copying of features? Music, painting, storytelling; all art relies on a shared context. Great art works from there and pushes the boundaries. And I believe that coding can be an artistic expression. So I expect great programmers to borrow from each other, and then push those ideas in new directions.

We can argue which company's new direction we like best. But who is copying who? I don't care. I only care who is making the technology that I can use to write my software.

Re: Apple stole Alt-Tab and Fast User Switching

[crashelite]

what are you talking about apple doesnt use alt they use command or apple... what is such a better name for something that "commands" the switching of applications and commands the exiting and so on of apps. but did apple really "steal" it from MS? or did some one write an application for mac to do the same and then apple just intergated it on user request?

Well, duh.

[wootest]

Personally, I think that everyone with their head on straight knows at this point that copying is something that everyone does on this level. You may be one of the holdouts to think that this is bad, but if it was bad and nobody would do it, where would we be today? Just taking the Mother of All Demos, nobody except the by Engelbart designated innovators would be given access to the stuff presented there: the mouse ("Bug"), video conferencing, email, hypertext... When people are bitching about "copying" or "stealing", I don't think they consider the alternative and how much more crappy it is.

There's also a thing as overdoing it and not inventing enough on your own, but I don't think any major vendor (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and so on) are doing that as of today. Apple's poking fun at Vista to rally the troops (it's a developer conference!) and to twiddle Microsoft's nose once more while they have the chance - it's marketing, not the universal truth.

I also think that 10.5 is misunderstood at this level. Take Time Machine: even if we discount the smoke-and-mirrors display of the thing or the fact that the OS helps you backup efficiently with a non-boot volume and four UI controls in its preference pane, the big innovation here is really that you can restore not only one file but that there are *built-in hooks* for "here's this old file and here's this new file" which means that you can cherry-pick old items from old database files. This is something very neat and very useful that in 99 cases of 100 couldn't be done before without resorting to poking and prodding the database files themselves; and now that it's built-in to some of Apple's apps, it's not only going to be tremendously useful there but there's going to be an onus on third-party developers to provide support for this, which means a better user experience for everyone.

As a developer, I'm very excited about 10.5. There's all sorts of new APIs, the old APIs have been extended in better ways, and the developer tools have reportedly gotten the biggest facelift since, well, *ever*. Xcode 3.0 may even trump the step from OS X's Project Builder to Xcode 1.0, and the Interface Builder has finally received some much-needed love. Gruber's right: "Complaining that the announcements at WWDC only appealed to 'the geeks' is like going to a rock concert and complaining that all they did was play loud music."

Re: Apple stole Alt-Tab and Fast User Switching

[rspress]

Strange that a lot of the bells and whistles and even some major features look a lot like and even act a lot like features that OS X already had. Apple has borrowed from Microsoft as well. The difference is that when Apple borrows from Microsoft it more often not improves the interface and provides more efficient code.

If we are keeping a score sheet however Microsoft by far has borrowed much more from Apple, right down to hiring ex-apple OS interface designers for Windows 3.x. Susan Kare is a prime example.

http://www.kare.com/design_bio.html
http://www.kare.com/portfolio.html

Follow the money

[atani]

Ok, what I want to know is how much $$ do Apple and Microsoft have invested in slashdot and other news/opinion sites? Judging by the amount of coverage these chest-beating comments get every time either side makes them you'd think they owned (sorry pWn3d) Time-Warner, OSTG, etc. and timed their chest-beating with those moments when their stock price was flying low... oh wait. That's my 6a.m. theory and I'm stickin to it!

Digital Unix is OSF/1

[brokeninside]

Unless I'm mistaken Digital renamed OSF/1 to Digital Unix about the same time they rebranded themselves to Digital from DEC. When they did they came out with a pretty funny series of ads in the trade mags over Digital Kickbutt Unix. So, yeah, OSF/1 was probably the first 64 bit Unix, but the only difference between OSF/1 and Digital Unix was the name.

Awseome post, but I disagree a little

[brokeninside]

A 64 bit CPU and operating system in the early nineties was a huge deal and it's hard to understate just how innovative it was at a time when mainstream computers were just making the transition to 32 bit CPUs and the operating system that ran on them was DOS/Windows 3.1.

That aside, I'm mostly in agreement with your post. Back in the late ninties, IBM and Microsoft both took turns hiring some of the design geniuses behind the Apple UI. Windows 95 copied quite a bit from the Work Place Shell of OS/2 v2. OS/2 v.4, in turn, copied quite a few ideas from the Chicago shell of Win95 and NT 4. Apple's OS 8 and 9 copied from both. That's how progress works. Somebody comes up with a really good idea that might be brand new (or might be just a variation on a previous idea) and other people do variations on that idea.

But I do think that sometimes the steps taken in this process of evolutionary development are hugely innovative and do need quite a bit of credit. The invention of the mouse, for example, was a big deal. The idea of power throttling inside the CPU, as another, is huge.

Re:Awseome post, but I disagree a little

[Tim Browse]

A 64 bit CPU and operating system in the early nineties was a huge deal and it's hard to understate just how innovative it was at a time when mainstream computers were just making the transition to 32 bit CPUs and the operating system that ran on them was DOS/Windows 3.1.

Hey, I found an old computer magazine while clearing up the other day that had an article entitled "Does business really need 16-bit?" :-) It was full of great comments like some prototype CPUs such as the 32016 (32-bit CPU - unimaginable power!) being able to address up to 4Mb of RAM (I think - can't remember how many address lines it had), which was 'clearly ludicrous'.

But I digress. My point is that it's an obvious thing to do - go to 64-bit. Is a 128-bit OS a few years down the line going to be shockingly innovative? No, not really.

Which, importantly, is not to denigrate good engineering. As an example, look at the new Mac Pro enclosure. Nothing in there is innovative per se - we all know that good layout and design is something to strive for, it's just that Apple actually went ahead and did it for a change. Similarly with the original move to 64-bit OS - I'm sure there was lots of good engineering in there, but it wasn't something that surprised many people, I'm sure. As a whole, I mean. As you mention, I'm sure there were bits of innovation in there too. To take another example: ClearType - an anti-aliasing font engine was not new at the time. To use the horizontal RGB pixel layout of the LCD panels to increase horizontal resolution was innovative (in that I believe it hadn't been done before, and it wasn't that obvious).

As I said, it's the whole "We've just released a 64-bit OS - aren't we great? How come no-one else thought of this before? We must be so cool!" attitude that bugs me about stuff like this (esp. when in Apple's case, it was done ages ago, as you say. Or even look at the photocopier boys).

In summary: you kids, get off my lawn! I know your Dad!

Some Apples taste better

[jdbartlett]

It's a bad comparison because Microsoft's are all such bad products, but upgrading 10.x is more like upgrading Windows 9x versions, or NT4 to 2000, while upgrading from OS 9 to OS 10 is more like upgrading from Windows 9x to XP. Actually, from 3.11 to Windows XP, but never mind...

Each version of OS X sees service packs released within its lifetime. These eliminate bugs, provide security patches, new features, etc.

Unfortunately, too few Windows users know enough about OS X to realize that 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and the upcoming Leopard are not service packs. Because the operating system isn't numbered 11 and hasn't been given an ugly new theme, Windows users especially fall under the false impression that each release of OS X has been nothing but a service pack. It's a simplistic mentality that because each version doesn't look significantly different, it isn't. As well as new functionality, each new OS X comes with core system changes.

Having said that, Apple themselves are partly responsible for the confusion. 10.1 was given to 10.0 users for free. This is because 10.1 provided some essential features that were missing from 10.0. Most Windows users probably don't know this.

Lastly, Apple will never be big with standard business users. Microsoft's dependence on standard business users is its biggest reason for keeping a much slower release cycle. Don't be fooled that Microsoft is doing you any favors by leaving you with what Tiger users already consider an ancient OS. Microsoft knows where its real loyalties lie: businesses who either cannot or refuse to follow a faster upgrade cycle. For desktop users, such as myself, upgrading or switching OS is a smaller deal. The $140 to upgrade Tiger is less than Adobe is demanding I pay to upgrade Photoshop.

If you'd like a better OS without paying the price, I recommend Kubuntu. It has a fast release cycle and is built on a sturdier core than Windows, and doesn't require you buy new hardware.

Thurrott's remarks were valid

[kzinti]

I didn't think *any* of Thurrott's points were invalid. I wrote the TechBlog piece because some of his points were *incomplete* -- and thus misleading.

Re:Thurrott's remarks were valid

[jdbartlett]

Sorry, Jim. It was poor word choice.

Re:What about Leopard 64-bit?

[alanQuatermain]

My real question here is, how much of Leopard 'really' is a 64bit OS? Are ANY of the drivers really 64bit, or is the kernel mode they are running in, still a 32bit environment?

The reason that this seems really suspect, is the Intel based MacBooks are running on a 32bit CPU, no 64bit whatsoever. So is there separate versions for the MacBooks, or is Leopard once again trying to pretend to be a 64bit OS, like Apple touted OSX as 3 years ago, when it wasn't?

It's probably worth pointing out at this juncture that Leopard hasn't been released yet. So, the fact that the MacBooks currently aren't 64-bit capable has little or no bearing on the issue.

It's also worth pointing out, since you appear to have forgotten this part of the grandparent's post while making this argument, that Leopard will support both 32-bit and 64-bit machines. It's not just 64-bit, and able to load 32-bit drivers-- it will ship using universal (i.e. 'fat') binaries where applicable, meaning that on 32-bit machines it would use 32-bit binaries, and on 64-bit it can use 64-bit binaries. Also, since both will be installed together, then you can run your 64-bit apps alongside your 32-bit apps, and each will load the appropriate implementation of the system libraries. Exactly the same as the non-GUI apps in OS X 10.4 can do now, on the G5 and on the Xeon-based Mac Pro announced this past week.

32-bit and 64-bit on the Mac aren't mutually exclusive, because they use these universal/fat binaries. You'll not go to the store and buy the 32-bit or 64-bit version of Mac OS, any more than you'd go and buy the PowerPC or Intel versions. They'll ship in the same box. The Installer application has had support since at least OS X 10.2 for installing only particular architectures from a fat binary within its archive. That probably comes from its NeXTStep heritage, which could happily handle fat-binary applications compiled for Motorola, Intel, and Sparc architectures. So, when you buy a copy of OS X, I'd guess it'll have all architectures on the DVDs, and at install time it (may) install only what's appropriate: 32-bit ppc on G4 and lower, 32-bit Intel on Core Duo, then 32- & 64-bit ppc on G5, and 32- and 64-bit i386 on Xeon or Core 2 Duo. But hey, that's just a guess.

Microsoft debated on whether to let the x64 version of Windows do a mixed mode 32bit driver support, and the team chose to abandon 32bit drivers for several reasons. One of them hoping to force hardware vendors to write 'better' drivers.

Of course, I can say this for sure until I get my hands on a preview copy of Leopard (I'm an ADC member, but not at WWDC, so I have to wait for either a download or a DVD in the mail to see it for myself), but given the wway they've handled it in user-space, I'm assuming that kernel-mode will work in much the same way: you can have Xcode build a 'universal' binary containing multiple architectures, so potentially that could include ppc, i386, ppc64, and x64. All from the same code (well, unless you've got assembler in there, but then quite frankly the onus is on you to handle the differences).

Now, it's been a couple of years since I delved much into Windows programming, so don't shout if I'm a little off-target, but here's a key difference between in code compatibility between Apple's and Microsoft's 64-bit efforts: Microsoft uses ILP64, Apple uses LP64. That means that on 64-bit Windows, ints, long ints, and pointers are all 64-bit quantities. On 64-bit Mac OS, ints are still 32-bit, while long ints and pointers are 64-bit. That means that for programmers on the Mac, if we've been relatively careful to use 'int' for our basic 32-bit types rather than 'long', then that code will compile happily for both 32- abd 64-bit environments. When we're casting pointers we need to be more careful, however. In contrast, Microsoft likely picked ILP64 to avoid the 32- vs. 64-bit rounding that could happen if your code routinely casts pointers to

Re: Apple stole Alt-Tab and Fast User Switching

[radiotyler]

DAMMIT! I knew I should have gone with France!

Re: What a week!

[dsmall]

I watched the demo of Time Machine with considerable shock, because it looks very, very much like the user interface for "HyperWeb", a product I was working on a long time ago, in fact, before the Web. I wrote about it in Current Notes way back when. It was named "HyperWeb" because it "Webbed" together files and made it very hard to lose them -- nothing whatsoever to do with the WWW.

    It was like a very bad dream for me. For a day or two I actually re-ran the demo to make sure it -wasn't- a bad dream.

    I wondered if the people I'd showed HyperWeb to under NDA had kept to the NDA, or if someone else had seen it, or ... well, nuts. This can make you crazy.

      This has been a tough week, wondering what happened. But I've finally come to this conclusion:

      Apple is where I was at when I designed HyperWeb back twenty years ago, when I felt the problems of files-across-time, and the problems of files having multiple dimensions, needed to be addressed.

      In 1986 I was a bit busy with the Mac Emulator thing.

      I've also seen synchronous development. I got to talk to the German programmer who did the Mac emulator over there, and he and I started in the same month, possibly the same week. It does happen.

      I'm not accusing anyone, nor Apple, nor Apple's lawyers. I have already had enough contact with Apple's lawyers and seem to have accidentally triggered a lawsuit between Apple and Microsoft. (Oops!). It's funny how life works.

      -- thanks,

        Dave Small

Re:What about Leopard 64-bit?

[makomk]

Users won't care if drivers are 64 bit or 32 bit. They will care that they work and that they're available. Application developers, meanwhile, aren't involved. "A big deal indeed"? I don't think so.

The thing about the 64-bit edition of Windows XP is that, in general, the drivers aren't available - it's one of the reasons why few people actually use it. It probably isn't such a big deal for Apple though, since Mac OS X only runs on Apple-designed and manufactured machines anyway.

Copy away!

[Slovenian6474]

I hope they both copy each other more often! As a windows user, i wouldn't mind some of the features on OSX and i'm sure Apple people wouldn't mind some of the features on windows (although most wouldn't openingly admit it). As long as it's "inspired" and not "copied" so they don't sue the pants off each other.