Microsoft Feared Mac Vs. Vista In '05

CWmike writes "Gregg Keizer sifted through many threads of e-mails released under the 'Vista Capable' lawsuit to dig up this jewel...More than a year before Windows Vista's release — and long before Apple started poking fun at the OS — Microsoft officials were already worried about comparisons between Mac OS X and Vista. An e-mail thread from October 2005 showed that an article in the Wall Street Journal by Walt Mossberg grabbed the attention of managers at Microsoft. In a column headlined What PC to Buy If You Are Planning On a Vista Upgrade, Mossberg alarmed one Windows manager who forwarded a bit from the column.... 'You won't have to worry about Vista if you buy one of Apple Computer's Macintosh computers, which don't run Windows,' Mossberg had written. 'Every mainstream consumer doing typical tasks should consider the Mac. Its operating system, called Tiger, is better and more secure than Windows XP, and already contains most of the key features promised for Vista.' Warrier added a comment of his own: 'A premium experience as defined by Walt = Apple. This is why we need to address [the column].'"

Comments

What Microsoft should really have considered

[Moryath]

What Microsoft should really have considered was why, even before they released it, customers were ready to say NO to Vista.

It's been a huge albatross around their neck. It's Windows ME 2.0, has gotten the same response (and even MS eventually had to list Windows ME as "Do Not Use") and yet the consumer is getting fucked by MS's trying to kill off XP and force them to install the Vista Virus instead.

The "Aero" interface is a standing joke; the supposed "security" of Vista is laughable compared to simply keeping XP properly updated and behind a NAT at home; and the performance hit it takes to run is incredible. Vista is half as fast as XP on the same hardware, that's reason enough not to use it even before all the other crap and nonsense.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jgtg32a]

And Vista is faster than XP on the proper hardware ie Dual Core, 4GB+ ram

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[sakdoctor]

It's not fair to call vista a virus.
Viruses are some of the tiniest and most efficient pieces of code written.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Ethanol-fueled]

the supposed "security" of Vista is laughable

Excellent comment. Those of us who work in computer repair or who have porn-addicted friends know that getting malware on Vista is as easy as getting malware on any other version of Windows, the sole difference being that the UAC dialog(if enabled) pops up 5 times a second instead of 5 times a minute.

Vista is an epic fail! They moved everything around and added unnecessary menu options making navigation a nightmare for people familiar with prior versions. Bold moves in changing the layout for Vista and the latest Office, though it turned their user experience into a counterintuitive nightmare!

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[pcfixer]

This is simply not true. Vista is not faster than XP in almost any respect. Any computer with identical hardware will run Windows XP faster than Vista. Period. While service pack 1 has helped somewhat, Vista still lags behind XP. There have been many reviews to demonstrate this, most recently in Maximum PC. Dont delude yourselft into thinking that you are using Vista because it is faster. It isnt. www.lapcfixer.com

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 older than dirt

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[FireXtol]

I'm guessing Microsoft never, ever said this(unless you badly re-word an end of product cycle). That would be akin to Apple using truthful advertising. Or the PC-teacher guy on TV saying "Please DON'T use my product"

It would mean disaster for business.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[elashish14]

Excuse me? I thought the people who work in computer repair ARE the ones with porn-addicted friends.

-cough- Geek Squad -cough-

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[LWATCDR]

I think your a bit over the top.
I just built my wife a new PC and we decided that we would put Vista 64 on it as a test. She is very computer literate and often boots into Linux. She likes it okay so far. The problem with Vista is that the pain is not worth the gain. My wife had all new hardware and we are using SP1. Her system has been stable and pretty fast. Is it better then XP? Not really it is really just different.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[girlintraining]

> What Microsoft should really have considered was why, even before they released it, customers were ready to say NO to Vista.

I'd mod you "+5, Uncomfortable Truth" if I could for this. The disconnect between management, marketing, and engineering is staggering. They need to address this before they commit to anything again.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

... Because they do EXACTLY what they're supposed to do, well

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

You can make that argument when any new major iteration of Windows comes out.

Windows 95 is slower than Windows 3.1 on the same hardware.

Windows 3.1 is slower than Windows 1.0 on the same hardware.

The key here is the phrase 'on the same hardware'. As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately. And it's not a Windows thing, it's a MacOS thing and a Linux thing.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Moryath]

Pray tell, what alternate universe are you from wherein this is true?

I've done the test on brand new boxes we get in. Quad-core (not simply dual), 4GB RAM. Vista is STILL slower than XP even on these beasts.

Or are you talking Vista 64-bit Edition, aka "I'm not compatible with jack crap and not even NVidia or ATi have fully working drivers for me" edition?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to late 2008! Where you're just full of a bullshit!

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[creepynut]

I'm sorry, what does that have to do with the English word virus?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Zordak]

The latin word virus is a singularitantum and has no latin plural.

For those who speak English, however, the English word "virus" takes the plural "viruses," as any dictionary will confirm.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

But when referring to the plural of forum you don't use fora, or do you?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[operagost]

I'm not a Vista fan, but to claim that it is "half as fast" is unqualified nonsense. Fortunately for you, the huge Anti-MS crowd here has no problem modding you up.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[bgray54]

Shouldn't this have been modded Funny instead of Insightful?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup...that's what he said.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Bert64]

Only on hardware that doesn't have XP drivers (or a misconfigure xp since it has very few drivers out of the box)...
Once you have the proper drivers for your hardware XP just walks all over vista on any machine.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[ceoyoyo]

The English word virus is a singular and has a plural, viruses.

Yes, English steals words shamelessly. It's proud of it even.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

And Vista is faster than XP on the proper hardware
ie Dual Core, 4GB+ ram

Woah, there buddy. Hate to pull on the reigns there, but 32-bit is 32-bit. What exactly do you plan on doing with the "+" north of 4GB?

Not to mention the cost associated with obtaining the "proper hardware", when you just bought a fairly decent XP machine 2 years ago that still has a warranty left on it.

Not too many other things in life are you ready to shove in the garbage after only two years, yet that's damn near what Vista is forcing the average consume to do so...

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[AvitarX]

Or "Virii" as any `1337 h@x0r will confirm.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Bert64]

The user experiences is in many ways more intuitive, but that's not the issue...
What people say "intuitive" they actually mean "familiar". They are familiar with the old interface, and don't want to change to the new one even if it is better. They use the same argument against linux or mac too.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[ceoyoyo]

Some are. The virus world has gone downhill a lot though. Why, many of them are written in Visual Basic!

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[UnknowingFool]

With ME, the users had alternatives. That is the main difference here. Businesses could got with Win2K. Consumers could stick with 98 and only needed to wait a year for XP. So it was easier for MS to write off ME. With Vista, the only alternative is XP which MS killed off. So MS is stuck until Win7 which is why they are pushing for it so hard now.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[plague3106]

Well, your quip is fine, except that we're using English, not Latin. English also have a good bit of German roots as well, yet for some reason no one ever raises that.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jo_ham]

It's a cliché for sure but something of a speciality of the language, for sure.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Colonel Korn]

Wow, what's not compatible with Vista 64? What's wrong with 100% working video drivers that install and function for nVidia and ATI devices exactly the same as the 32 bit drivers? I also suggest you try comparing Vista and XP boxes after a month of use. XP slows down, Vista gets faster. After even a day of use, Vista will be faster at loading some applications (at least Firefox, Word, Trillian for me). Vista will typically have lower average framerates by 0-5% as long as you run a DX9 version of whatever you're playing in Vista. If you use DX10, in most cases you'll suffer by 10-50%. App productivity benchmarks like running PS filters will probably show a very small XP advantage. Differences are negligible on most cases, but it's true that a few albatrosses are still out there, unaddressed.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[aaron.axvig]

On a computer that is actually in every day use the RAM caching is Vista's biggest trick up its sleeve. Launching and using applications is simply faster on ANY Vista machine with enough RAM (1.5GB or greater) after a few days/weeks for it to learn. This is true even on my Pentium M 1.6GHz.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jo_ham]

It counters the huge Anti-Apple crowd that mods any post that says "I can buy an identical machine to a Macbook Pro with OS X with all the same features and benefits for $399 from newegg!!!!!" that gets a +5 insightful five seconds after going live.

Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet. The truth is usually somewhere between the hyperbole on both ends.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[nabsltd]

The key here is the phrase 'on the same hardware'. As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately.

If Vista were actually doing more for the user than XP, then people wouldn't be quite so upset.

But, most of what makes Vista slow are either bugs (file copy bug, poor algorithm used by SuperFetch that actually slows down real-world usage, etc.) or things the user doesn't want, like DRM or the extra pseudo-security features that don't really do anything, since there are still exploits from the Win2K days that work on an out-of-the-box Vista install.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[xonar]

Thank you captain grammar! :)

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[nabsltd]

It's true that Vista isn't half as fast as XP. For some operations, it is far, far slower.

Although an actual bug and not a feature, the slow file copy that plagued Vista before SP1 resulted in copy times that were 10x that of XP on the same files. The thing that bothers me most about this sort of bug is that it was not in the public betas, so it must have been a change purely for the release version. That means the copy slowdown was either intentional, or there was absolutely no testing of this change.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[sh00z]

The key here is the phrase 'on the same hardware'. As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately. And it's not a Windows thing, it's a MacOS thing and a Linux thing.

Not necessarily. MacOS X, 10.2 was faster than 10.1, and 10.3 faster than 10.2, on the same hardware. It wasn't until 10.4 that you actually started seeing a performance hit on G3 and slower G4 computers.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife had all new hardware

Ahhhhh, the old robot wife thing.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

this should have been modded: FUNNY:5.

People were running XP just fine on machines with as little as 256MB Ram. I know because my mother's machine is still running that. I sit across the room running Ubuntu, and constantly nag her to try linux, but she just keeps using windows. She doesn't complain about it, until the internet's slow (because I've got 300 tabs open, 25downloads going). So what's really proper hardware, and what's overkill? I've got the 300 tabs/25dls going on a 1.8GHz single core proc, w/1GB of ram. I'm still doing fine. Vista wulda crashed this computer if I tried the same.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[stewbacca]

Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet. The truth is usually somewhere between the hyperbole on both ends.

It's what drives me crazy and makes me want to run away, but at the same time, it's what keeps me coming back. Maybe a new mod scheme could be introduced that shows the post on a polarization scale.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[argiedot]

I did, once, and now I have to sit in this room staring at the blinkenlichten.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[BorgDrone]

the supposed "security" of Vista is laughable

This.

UAC has got the whole security thing backwards. It has the computer asking "Am I allowed to do this ?". Of course you are as far as I am concerned, I just told you to do that!

Who buys a safe that asks a potential thief if you really want it to open ? A safe must only open to authorized personel, and those people have to prove they are authorized by entering a code. Same goes for UAC, you're asking the same person who's possibly trying to do harm if (s)he is allowed.

The question every sane OS is asking it's users when doing something dangerous is: "Are YOU allowed to do this ? Please prove so by entering the admin/root password".

What is the security team at Microsoft smoking, and where can I get some ?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[b4dc0d3r]

Even though we are all supposedly geeks, it might help if you gave grammar lessons in English instead of regex.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm I've been running vista 64 bit on more than one machine for a well over a year with NVidia drivers and although the first couple of months (before sp1) were horrible I haven't had a crash in the last year and I've yet to run into a single program I couldn't get running.

This is not even on standard hardware but 8-core machines with 40 gigs of ram. Vista 64 bit works very well (now anyway)

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[CFBMoo1]

And Vista is faster than XP on the proper hardware
ie Dual Core, 4GB+ ram

My dual core 3ghz processor with 4gb of ram says otherwise when going from XP to Vista. Intel stuff no less with up to date drivers and also a high speed SATA drive.

File copies in XP took twice as long in Vista for files of equal size on the same hardware.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[CFBMoo1]

It's not fair to call vista a virus.
Viruses are some of the tiniest and most efficient pieces of code written.

64 Base Pairs ought to be enough for anybody!!!1!

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[azuravian]

Only because they had no plural form due to the fact that they did not understand viruses. We now understand that viruses are indeed countable and many medical texts use both viruses and virii for the plural.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're saying that XP is faster than Vista on say a single core proc with 1 GB ram, but if they are both on say a dual core with 4GB ram, vista is faster. In what universe does this make any sense whatsoever?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Hal_Porter]

Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet. The truth is usually somewhere between the hyperbole on both ends.

It's what drives me crazy and makes me want to run away, but at the same time, it's what keeps me coming back. Maybe a new mod scheme could be introduced that shows the post on a polarization scale.

Mod parent down! And then BURN HIM LIKE THE WITCH HE IS!

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

We're communicating in English. My dictionary seems to think that viruses is perfectly fine. There is no really no reason to maintain Latin rules.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[mabhatter654]

M$ didn't say not to use ME.. but Win98 SE was on sale far longer than ME which quietly went away from retail and support, and when XP shipped 98SE was still installed when ME wasn't.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

The key here is the phrase 'on the same hardware'. As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately. And it's not a Windows thing, it's a MacOS thing and a Linux thing.

Not necessarily. MacOS X, 10.2 was faster than 10.1, and 10.3 faster than 10.2, on the same hardware. It wasn't until 10.4 that you actually started seeing a performance hit on G3 and slower G4 computers.

In any event, I'm not sure that I'd call the jump from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3 'major iterations'.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[gittela]

There is also the point of ram. XP32 simply can't use 4 gigs of ram, neither can Vista32. I won't even get into XP64, as it was largely useless. Vista64 is slightly better, but not much.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[billcopc]

Sure, but how much time do you spend loading apps vs using them ?

If you get such a tremendous benefit from the anticipatory caching of certain files, it is trivial to write a script that does the exact same thing on bootup. I have an astoundingly dumb yet effective Perl script that reads my Firefox directory every few seconds, to keep it in the disk cache. Firefox launches *instantly*. It would be quite simple to write such an app for Windows XP, that runs in the background and monitors disk activity just like Vista does, without all the overhead.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[hey!]

Perhaps in the universe where 4GB+ means more than 4GB of RAM?

At least, I'd expect Vista to be faster than 32 bit XP with PAE for systems with memory in the 8GB range; I'm not sure how 64 bit XP, or Windows Server stack up. 64 bit Vista is available in more editions certainly than 64 bit XP, and 64 bit XP has its own driver problems. Situations where working sets are greater than 4GB are fairly rarified yet, and "out of the box" benchmarking is not all that informative about those.

Still, it is quite possible that in certain circumstances, 64 bit Vista is a reasonable choice and, indeed, faster than XP 64.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[BForrester]

Do avoid pluralizing "virus" when writing in latin. Do ignore the rules of latin when you're following the ever-evolving conventions of modern English. The ancients would not approve, but we say "viruses" now.

PS: At least he didn't say "virii."

PPS: I think you mean "singulare tantum."

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[BOFHelsinki]

Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet. The truth is usually somewhere between the hyperbole on both ends.

I've got to disagree with you on this one. Sure, the discussions here never fail to haul in the extremists as well, but of all tech sites /. is the one I come to look for the good arguments. And I mean the full spectrum of arguments -- informed and thoughtful takes on either (or all three or whatever) side. IMHO this really is a great community, with a distinct tradition of injecting common sense into sometimes very complex issues. IMHO, "a polarizing environment" is quite a belittling view of this community (which in turn is 99% of what /. is all about, the rest is the CowboyNeal option). Specifically, the pro/anti MS/Apple/other factions seem to constitute a rather small portion of the audience. Whereas many here like to call bullshit (from anyone) when they see it.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[keypox]

have you ever used leopard? It is the same resource hog as vista. If not more, less secure, updated slower and less often, runs less software, requires atleast 2GB of ram to run good. Every leopard user (with any sense) knows this. But everyone fails to mention this. When the mac vs pc comes up. Also mac picks the hardware for leopard and its always enough HP for the OS. If microsoft used the same hardware that mac uses everything would run just fine. The problem is so many windows users try to upgrade to vista on old outdated systems. And while mac users try to do the same thing they give up because leopard runs like crap on old hardware.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[aaron.axvig]

How much time does my computer spend idle? The vast majority. When is it under heavy load? When launching applications. Now, which part would you speed up to give a performance improvement to the end user? Would you make the tasks when the computer is relatively idle run faster. Of course not.

Typical users cannot write Perl scripts. You could write a Perl scripts that replaces the Start Menu, but does the average user want that? No, they don't want to write Perl scripts. They want features in an operating system that improve their life.

Also, RAM caching is pretty advanced. I have not done personal tests to verify, but it is supposed to base what it has loaded on what apps you run at different times of day or on certain days of the week. Now that is a kick-ass feature.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[the_B0fh]

I call bullshit. I had a dual 1.4ghz/2G ram box sitting in the bedroom that swmbo and I shared. A friend gave me a powermac 450Mhz that had OS X 10.1 on it. As we upgraded to 10.2 and 10.3, we could see the speed increase. In fact, over a period of 6 months, both swmbo and I migrated to the 450Mhz OS X box simply because the usability factors outweigh anything else.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[torstenvl]

And that performance hit was due to a lot more stuff going on in the background (Spotlight indexing, FSEvents). Leopard is, I believe, faster than Tiger on the same (newer, 64-bit Intel) hardware (Tiger is faster on PowerPC and maybe faster on 32bit Intel), and Snow Leopard is supposed to be faster than Leopard.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Tony Hoyle]

OSX is often optimised for speed over successive releases... in fact one of the goals for snow leopard is improved performance.

It's something MS could probably learn from.. OTOH keeping everyone on the upgrade treadmill is worth it to them.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not compatible with jack crap and not even NVidia or ATi have fully working drivers for me" edition?

This isn't true at least for NVidia drivers. I run Crysis on a Vista Ultimate 64-bit machine with a NVidia 8800GT and the latest drivers from NVidia. It runs just fine without any graphics problems.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anpheus]

You realize your perl cache has overhead and the execution time is actually a negative there, as miniscule as it is. Vista's method doesn't do things like hit the FS every few minutes "just to see how it's going" when it does prefetch.

The reason people complain about Vista's memory usage is because they see this:
Physical Memory (MB)
Total: 3069
Cached: 1794
Free: 13

And they think "OH MY GOD IT'S USING ALMOST ALL OF IT."

No.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Enderandrew]

The exception actually is XP to an extent. At XP's launch it had problems and used more memory than Win 2k. But despite still using more memory, a properly configured XP SP3 box can run faster than Win 2k on the same hardware. I know firsthand from upgrading several hundred Win2k boxes to XP between my last two companies.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Enderandrew]

There never was a Windows XP 64. There is Windows x64, which is built on the Server 2003 kernel, allows me to use more than 4 gigs of memory, but is closer to XP than it is Vista. It is my single favorite Windows release.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

As for this the X64 complaint, you know, the one where drivers are not available and programs don't work, I think that problem is largely gone by now. Certainly at Vista's Launch, and back with XP X64 of a certainty, but now you're talking out your ass. And as far as Video Drivers there were solid drivers for XP x64 by time Vista had come around.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Yes, English steals words shamelessly. It's proud of it even.

It sure does! Just the other day I was looking for my dear old ----, but I didn't have a word to call her anymore! And now, because I can't tell people who I'm looking for, she's lost forever. ("Excuse me, buddy, have you seen my ----? She's about 5'6", and getting on in years" "Your... what?" "My ----, she's missing and hasn't had her medication!" "Buzz off, freak.")

Damn you, English! Damn youuuu!

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Tony Hoyle]

There are no intuitive interfaces.. everything it learned.

One thing that doesn't help is hiding options.. the original IBM style guides (that MS prety much stuck to until Vista) were clear that an option shouldn't appear and disappear as it's confusing.

Max. 'oops' points of cours goes to Office 2007 that manages to hide the file menu so successfully I've actually been called in to 'fix' a machine when 5 people in an office couldn't work out how to save a document.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[uberjack]

It's been a huge albatross around their neck....

Do I get wafers with it?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[gabrieltss]

Windows isn't a virus - Viruses do something!

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Gerzel]

Linux thing?

Leave us out of it meatbag! That's what distros are for!

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[BLQWME]

Priceless!

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

> there are still exploits from the Win2K days that work on an out-of-the-box Vista install

Citation needed.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Lumpy]

Like my customer that wanted to pipe his rush limbaugh stream through the house. to his airport express on his whole house audio system.

Installing airfoil and running it gives a big vista "YOU ARE A MEDIA THIEF!!! HELP! HELP!" warning message.

It still works because airfoil get's around the silly Vista protected audio path, but it angers this very rich man.

I told him that he should consider downgrading to XP or moving to a Mac as Vista does nothing for him except get in his way.

He called us last friday looking for a company t hat can downgrade all his machines to XP. I sold him a raft of OEM XP Pro licenses and the required hardware to make it legal to downgrade them, and a phone number of a very good tech that can do it for him without loss of data.

I'm guessing they will never upgrade to Vista at the company he owns now....

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[grub]

Fortunately for you, the huge Anti-MS crowd here has no problem modding you up.

Not everyone is that stupid. Before positively modding a post I confirm the statements on Snopes and Netcraft.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[m.ducharme]

I, for one, would welcome our upgrade treadmill overlords more if I were delivered faster performance with my upgrade.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jo_ham]

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement with the bulk of your argument, since that is why I hang around here too. There is a lot of decent material to be found in the comments, among the fanboys and trolls on all sides. I wouldn't use "Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet." as my sole descriptor for the site, but I would include it in the mix somewhere.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Dolda2000]

There are no intuitive interfaces.. everything it learned.

My thought exactly. Many times, I've wondered if a command-line interface isn't actually superior very much for that exact reason -- it at least makes no attempt to appear intuitive, so at least it doesn't give people the wrong idea. They realize from the start that they'll have to learn.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Poltras]

The key here is the phrase 'on the same hardware'. As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately. And it's not a Windows thing, it's a MacOS thing and a Linux thing.

Not necessarily. MacOS X, 10.2 was faster than 10.1, and 10.3 faster than 10.2, on the same hardware. It wasn't until 10.4 that you actually started seeing a performance hit on G3 and slower G4 computers.

In any event, I'm not sure that I'd call the jump from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3 'major iterations'.

In any event, I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about. The full list of features in each iteration was astounding. The difference between 10.1 and 10.2 was of the order of those between Win 2k and Win XP. The fact that they update minor version numbers doesn't change the fact that they add enough to call it a major iteration.

Don't believe me? Check out for yourself on wikipedia: 10.1 10.2 and 10.3. Thank you, come again.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Tetsujin]

Vista is an epic fail!

If I could, I would mod -1: bad taste for using "fail" as a noun...

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM? Sorry, i think you're forgetting that the only DRM installed was Windows Media Player 11, the rest is insignificant, and on that note, DRM is included in XP as well. The only benefit to Vista, which was BEGGED to be released by the SEMI-geek crowd before they knew how bad it was, were the DX10 extensions. Microsoft, trying to push out this incomplete OS, after MANY delays (i remember quite well, if you guys don't) pulled certain features that were initially promised in the Longhorn product demo, like WinFS (Wow, a journaled file system, 30 years after *nix did it??) and much better hardware support (thanks to the hardware developers conferences, that was destroyed, many manufacturers wanted to have full access to the OS, and custom hardware profiling. this caused a lot of issues pre-SP1). Windows 7 is going to be the "FIX" of this plagued OS, but i do have to admit, SP2 on Vista Ultimate 64-bit runs fairly good, clean install, no hickups, drivers all installed, didn't have to scrounge for my RAID drivers. Give Vista the benefit of the doubt when SP2 comes out, and see if you can get your hands on a SP2 ISO, which you can use your current key to activate. (Microsoft needs to realize they should just sell keys and not the ISO with the key as a whole, because upgrades don't always work when the product isn't installed at all, and noone wants to pay 300 for a brand new copy of vista because the disk they bought before, was broken in the first place).

Windows 7 - Promising features, tons of fixes
Vista SP2 - Many of the driver-level and hardware-level fixes that Windows 7 will be bringing to the table
NO MORE BLUESCREENS! (i hope >.>)

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[sckeener]

They moved everything around and added unnecessary menu options making navigation a nightmare for people familiar with prior versions. Bold moves in changing the layout for Vista and the latest Office, though it turned their user experience into a counterintuitive nightmare!

That is what I keep pointing out to people. If you are going to have to relearn everything, doesn't it make sense to consider all the alternatives? Just saying that opens up dialog with my users about all the other possible OSs

I point out that I am a windows guy whose wife loves Mac. I'm her tech support and when switching between Vista and Mac, I have about the same learning curve. I know what I need to do, but I just don't know where on this OS to find it.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[JAlexoi]

Hm... What will happen to Mac OS when they use up all the wild cat names? Will it be Mac OS X 10.* Mixed Breed Domesticated Regular Cat a.k.a Mac OS X 10.* Cat :)

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jasen666]

I sold him a raft of OEM XP Pro licenses and the required hardware to make it legal to downgrade them

Wait, what? Hardware? What hardware is necessary to make XP legal to install? Why wouldn't simply buying the license be enough?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[iphayd]

10.1 is faster than 10.0 on the same hardware.
10.2 is faster than 10.1 on the same hardware.
10.3 is faster than 10.2 on the same hardware.
10.4 is faster than 10.3 on the same hardware.
I can't say about 10.5 because is either the same speed or slower on the same hardware, but I've switched hardware too.

Each of these revisions added features. Each of these revisions were also optimized more than the others (with the exception of 10.5.) The expressed feature of 10.6 is optimization, so I expect it to perform better than 10.5 (and 10.4) on the same hardware.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[drsmithy]

It's something MS could probably learn from..

Microsoft have yet to release an OS so mind-boggingly slow that even top-end hardware *years later* could barely run it acceptably, like Apple did with OS X.

OTOH keeping everyone on the upgrade treadmill is worth it to them.

Weird logic. "Keeping everyone on the upgrade treadmill" is worth far, far more to Apple than it ever could be to Microsoft.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[broken_ms_windows]

i have leopard installed on a old powermac g4 with 1 gb ram and it runs just as good as tiger did

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[RoverDaddy]

The key word there is OEM. Technically OEM copies of Windows must be sold with hardware, even though plenty of distributors will sell it alone.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[maxz2508]

Actually, after the release of SP1, Vista is just as fast (albeit slightly faster) on the same hardware as XP.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jasen666]

In what way is speed being measured here?
My current machine is a Mac Pro 8-core, but I run Windows on it (native, not virtualized).
At first I had XP x86 on it for a several weeks, but it couldn't see more than 3GB of RAM, so I updated again to Vista x64 to see all 8GB. I ran PCMark and 3DMark test before and after, and there was virtually no difference. Vista certainly uses a ton more resources, but when resources are ample, you don't feel it.
But honestly, in my benchmarks, and my seat-of-the-pants every day use benchmark, I don't see a difference. Were this a slower computer, I'm sure I'd have quite a different experience.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[CelticWhisper]

It's an OEM license requirement. In order for an XP OEM license (which is significantly cheaper than a full XP standalone license) to be kosher, it has to be bundled with hardware. Fortunately it can be something as simple as a mouse. Some have claimed you can even use just an IDE cable and it's technically okay. Personally I believe them, but it never hurts to double-check if you're planning on using OEM XP yourself.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jasen666]

Aye, I agree here. The first few months of the Vista release were eerily familiar to that of the XP release. I didn't move to XP until well after SP1 was released. The same for Vista.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[geobeck]

It would mean disaster for business.

Considering the staggering success of Vista, you point is...?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[squallbsr]

Except for the OS X upgrades from Tiger (10.4) to Leopard (10.5). Most people felt a speed improvement (mostly perceived) from upgrading their OS X install. (Assuming they had a multi-core/multi-cpu machine)

This came from Apple's investment of time into their Cocoa APIs making them more multi-threaded, so those multi-core and multi-cpu machines would spent more time processing rather than waiting on UI to compute.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[squallbsr]

If I had mod points, I would mod you up! Just because the number isn't incrementing to astronomical levels with each release doesn't mean that considerable changes aren't being made.

On another note:
Windows 2000 - Version 5.0
Windows XP - Version 5.1
Windows 2003 - Version 5.2

Hmm, seems like somebody was barking up the wrong tree...

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[drsmithy]

What people say "intuitive" they actually mean "familiar".

No, they mean "intuitive". "Intuitive" and "familiar" _are_ different things, no matter how many purveyors of bad UI try to argue otherwise.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[squallbsr]

Vista works well as long as you can get appropriate drivers and extremely compatible hardware. Certain C-Media audio cards cause Vista (even x64) to crash, even though there aren't drivers running - At least that is what the screen on my Vista x64 install said about my card.

The stability I enjoy in Ubuntu 8.04/8.10 on this same machine (several weeks of uptime) doesn't compare to the inability to get more than 20 HOURS uptime under Vista x64 on the same machine. (Intel Quad Core Q6600, Intel Chipset X38, 4GB RAM, ATI X3870 - no not a crappy machine, and no cheap parts)...

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[squallbsr]

It still applies, however...

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jasen666]

Same here.
I even found x64 ESATA and RAID drivers for my external array.
And oddly enough, Apple was good about releasing x64 Vista drivers for its hardware as well.
The only hardware I couldn't use is my ancient HP scanner.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[vux984]

If Vista were actually doing more for the user than XP, then people wouldn't be quite so upset.

Vista is more secure than XP. Unfortunately, people it turns out, really don't give a shit about security.

or the extra pseudo-security features that don't really do anything,

Forcing legions of inept users to not run as administrator is not pseudo-security.

I'll concede that some the warnings amount to pseudo-security, but the reality is that Vista is much more secure than XP. Signed drivers, the inability to put administrator items into your startup, and a whack of other measures all significantly hardened Vista to a damned LOT of the XP malware out there. Unfortunately it also broke a bunch of shoddily written legitimate apps, and users care more about running that crap than security.

since there are still exploits from the Win2K days that work on an out-of-the-box Vista install

Vista is much more secure than XP. Its not remotely impregnable, but it could be considered to be like a police armor compared to XP/2K's T-shirt and short-shorts.

But the bigger problem for windows isn't remote exploits, its its own users. Windows is a victim of its own success, the malware ecosystem for windows is unique.

Even if Windows were impregnable, due to its marketshare, it would still be the dominant target for exploits that rely on the meat using the PC. So Vista is challenged not only with being secure, but with protecting users from themselves... which has led to Vista being tasked with the impossible.

But give it time, there is nothing about OSX or Linux that makes it more secure against idiots installing keyloggers, rootkits, and other malware into their systems. If they ever have the same sizeable legions of inept users then the malware authors will target them too.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jasen666]

Oh, I glossed right over the "OEM" bit. I get it.
heh, I have several dozen never used OEM licenses sitting around--but no hardware to go with them.
I was thinking about selling them off at one point, before they became worthless.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[drsmithy]

Right. So would you care to venture a guess as to the percentage of Windows machines that have been exploited because someone other than an authorised user was sitting at the console ?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[MightyYar]

Not necessarily. MacOS X, 10.2 was faster than 10.1, and 10.3 faster than 10.2, on the same hardware. It wasn't until 10.4 that you actually started seeing a performance hit on G3 and slower G4 computers.

What you say is true, but to be fair MacOS X was so unbelievably slow to start out with that it was pretty easy to find places to optimize.

In contrast, Windows 2000 was pretty darned speedy and optimized already. XP slowed it up a bit, but mostly with eye candy that could be turned off. IIRC, it's the same basic thing under the hood.

And I'm saying this as someone with 2 Macs, so this is not intended as a flame. I love OSX.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[MightyYar]

Sure, but how much time do you spend loading apps vs using them ?

It's true. I find OSX to be so slow opening (some) apps that I just leave them open all the time. After my computer's been up for a month or so they pretty much are all running. Looking down my dock right now there are 15 apps running. Generally I find the VM swapping preferable to the bouncy bouncy in the dock.

Certainly application startup has almost no bearing on my choice in OS, though. It'd have to be really obscene to sway me.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be dumb. x64 is Windows XP Pro x64 edition.

Gee, random dude on Slashdot, or Microsoft's own website? That's a tough call.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Kineel]

I'm a hardcore gamer, and when I got a machine with a Vista upgrade disk I decided to run Vista and XP side by side for awhile until I was convinced that Vista didn't cause me any performance degradation while playing games. After a few weeks and a couple of video driver updates, Vista was getting the same performance as XP in every game that mattered to me. At that point I uninstalled the XP partition and haven't looked back.

That isn't to say I like Vista. It has many features that I am disgusted with. UAC is one obvious one. However, while I saw it as necessary, the real problem with UAC was the way it was implemented. MS simply got it wrong. The biggest problem is that Vista has no features that make it a "must have" upgrade. Except for DirectX 10, there is nothing that Vista does that XP cannot do in one fashion or another.

I don't recommend Vista to anyone. My wife just got a new machine with XP and a Vista upgrade disk. She'll stay on XP. I upgraded because I have to support the platform in my network security job, and I wanted to be familiar with it.

But Vista can be made to perform at least as well as XP in almost every case.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Kineel]

I have to agree on the UI front. The decision to move so many OS options and settings all over the place was simply baffling. It was like someone at MS said "If we move this stuff to new places, it will feel like a new OS."

At the very least I think they should have left hooks to allow users to go where they are used to when looking for something. Along with a note that tells people the new way to go about something. Instead they came up with some sort of "anti file link" mechanism. I wonder how many people double clicked on "Documents and Settings" and got frustrated and confused by the "You aren't allowed to go there" dialog box. The right thing to do would have been to make it a usable link. The next best thing would have been to pop up a kinder and gentler dialog that said "Please use the new 'Users' folder, we can take you there now if you like..." Simple and oh so un-Microsoft like. Instead they call the user an idiot for using a folder name they have been taught to use for years.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Kazoo the Clown]

A virus written by a "script kiddie," then...

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Jamie's Nightmare]

gives a big vista "YOU ARE A MEDIA THIEF!!! HELP! HELP!" warning message.

This whole story is fishy. Can you be more specific about the message? Such as the actual verbiage or telling us whether the message was generated by Windows or the Software itself? It's also entirely possible this was a bug in the Airfoil software, which while a Windows port is available, remains a mac centric product.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

How are options not more hidden in Office 2003 and prior? With the ribbon, most features are about 2 clicks away. When programs have as many features as Word and Excel, that's about as good as you can get and still have an organized, readable interface.

As for your friends with the save option, the save button is never taken away and always present at the top left, as the same icon it's been for 20 years. I don't know why that's so complicated.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[DrgnDancer]

Actually I found Leopard to be slightly more responsive than Tiger on the same hardware. Might have been my imagination, but it was certainly no slower. MacOS tends to be pretty good for for two or even three OS iterations on a given computer and at least usable for an iteration or two past that. I remember putting OS 10.3 on a G3 iMac for a professor in the 2003-4 time frame when his HDD crapped out and no one could find the OS 8 or OS 9 or whatever it was CDs that came with the machine. It was no speed demon, but the OS was usable and he could do e-mail/web/TeX editing.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[k1e0x]

The key here is the phrase 'on the same hardware'. As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately. And it's not a Windows thing, it's a MacOS thing and a Linux thing.

Not necessarily. MacOS X, 10.2 was faster than 10.1, and 10.3 faster than 10.2, on the same hardware. It wasn't until 10.4 that you actually started seeing a performance hit on G3 and slower G4 computers.

This is true. The reason Mac's got faster was improvements to GCC on PPC, and further optimization and "smart things" done by Apple. (prefetch, preload)

The same code really was faster, but eventually some of the features coming out in the later versions slowed it down. (Spotlight, Exposé).

It shows that Apple is moving in the right direction. Make it leaner and give people features they actually want, All Microsoft seems to want to try to do is kill off their old versions and add more "help" features, that end up being annoying and confusing. Leopard is a really good OS, but it's not faster than Ubuntu/Debian on the same hardware. Lenny is the only reason my G3 is still alive.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[tbannist]

Somehow I doubt that Slashdot is "one of the most polarising environments on the internet". In fact, I find that most of the time the moderation is reasonably fair and reflects the middle ground, you'll find highly rated comments reflecting just about about any legitimate viewpoint.

The people who tend to complain about moderation, tend to in fact by the people with extreme viewpoints who are upset when they are correctly modded down for their hyberbole or ranting. Pretty much every claim I've seen of "Slashdot group think" has been from someone who was simply wrong. Not merely voicing an unpopular opinion, but materially wrong.

Now sometimes people do get modded unfairly, but most of the time the system seems to work pretty well.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Jamie's Nightmare]

You just don't get it. When it comes to security there is no substitute for knowledge. Unless you manually approve every action that a program takes, there is no other way to use computer software. You do realize that if properly designed, I could write a program that would wipe out your entire user folder? Or even do damage to the OS folder itself if I simply get you to elevate the privilege? Are you naive enough to believe the average person is that difficult to fool?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jbolden]

But give it time, there is nothing about OSX or Linux that makes it more secure against idiots installing keyloggers, rootkits, and other malware into their systems. If they ever have the same sizeable legions of inept users then the malware authors will target them too.

What's interesting is the old NT model (capability based not permissions) is much more secure than anything OSX had or Linux had until recently (say the last 5 years). What killed it was that even the most basic windows apps didn't work well or integrate the security features, including explorer and office. So they ended up with a permissions system on top of the capability system.

The advantage that OSX and Linux have is a willingness to break badly written apps and not offer seamless version to version compatibility for app developers. Both of them have capability models now (SE LInux, Trusted BSD) they might pull ahead.

The other thing that Linux has is an OS model which allows for a heavily fragmented market with many many OSes with different balances of security vs. connivance.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[myz24]

I really think Leopard got away from the idea that each version of OS X was faster than the last. It is noticeably slower on my mini than Tiger for example. What is included is worth it to me however.

Now rumor has it Apple is working towards streamlining OS X for its next release. I really hope they can speed things up again, it'd be nice to see.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[myz24]

I think even the biggest Apple fan would have to agree that it was not the case for Leopard. Leopard was noticeably slower on my mini. I agree that the others got faster, but Leopard is certainly not faster than Tiger. I look forward to Snow Leopard if they can truly make it faster than Leopard.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[fwarren]

But give it time, there is nothing about OSX or Linux that makes it more secure against idiots installing keyloggers, rootkits, and other malware into their systems. If they ever have the same sizeable legions of inept users then the malware authors will target them too.

I usually try not to be inflammatory but are you smoking crack? XP is a member of the Microsoft OS Family. All work on it from 1985 to 1993 or so was based around the fact it was to be a non-networked, single user machine. Anytime there as a trade off between speed, ease of use and security. Well, security lost. After 1993 they tacked networking on top of that, then in the early 2000s they started trying to combat the internet and the bad security rep they had.

Since Microsoft OS's have to support legacy apps and still contain plenty of old code. It is like a building with no locks on doors, windows or elevators on the first 5 floors, only above that point. If someone lands on the helopad on top, it is all locked down and takes some work to get into. If someone arrives at ground level they automatically own the first 5 floors.

Both Linux and MacOS are based on Unix. An operating system that was designed from day one to be networked, multi-user and have at least a modicum of security right from the start. Now with almost 40 years of security improvements.

MacOS and Linux have both learned from Microsoft's mistakes. The difference is MacOS and Linux have been able to leverage this knowledge and make things more secure and better. Microsoft can't. It is hamstrung by legacy compatibility.

There is also the Microsoft Monoculture. MacOS Suffers somewhat from this as well. Find an exploit in windows, and there is a good chance it can run on 2000, XP, Vista and Seven. Find an exploit on Linux and well. It might work on Redhat but not Fedora. It may be a problem for Ubuntu, but not Slackware. Even if "Linux" owned 90% of the market. It still might be 35% Ubuntu, 30% Fedora based and 35% everything else. Heck, if you are paranoid, just run FreeBSD or Slackware. Still all of the great linux goodies but on a platform known for being secure or obscure. It is not likley someone is going "I am going to write an exploit and p0wn all of the Arch Linux users out there!"

Now to point. Most Linux users install software via their repositories. If it is not in the repository, they don't run it.

You so deserve to get p0wned if you download a java app, have to modify your .bashrc to include JAVAHOME. Or to do a apt-get build essential & configure & make & make installl.

Tell them to remember, synaptic good, gdebi bad.

Most linuxs force you to run as a non-privelaged user and don't bug you as much as Windows UAC does, so that you don't actually disable this security. Same with the Mac. Running as a non-privelaged user is easy to do. Doing admin things takes a password, but the system does not beat you over the head asking for authentication like Vista does.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jbolden]

The same universe where windows 95 is faster than XP on a Pentium-MMX with 64mb of ram but not on a 2 processor system with 2 gigs of ram.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting this anonymously for obvious reasons...

Vista has been received as ME 2.0, but the OS itself is hardly the disaster ME was. Many of the changes they made are hard to swallow and a good number are misguided or poorly implemented, but the underlying ideas are not so bad.

the supposed "security" of Vista is laughable compared to simply keeping XP properly updated and behind a NAT at home

The majority of people here could make any common operating system relatively secure. To say XP is more secure than Vista for your average user is a stretch. At the very least, you need to show some evidence before you make that claim. Microsoft isn't completely innocent here, but the main failure is the user.

and the performance hit it takes to run is incredible. Vista is half as fast as XP on the same hardware

XP is certainly faster, but that can be said about pretty much any new version. 95/98 were faster than XP. 3.1 was faster than 95/98, etc. Remember that people blasted XP for being slow when it first came out. Admittedly, Vista could have been made better/faster, but to directly compare the two is not the right way to do this. I would also add that when properly configured and installed on half-decent hardware, Vista runs as smoothly as XP ever did.

Anyway... my point is if you're going to bash Vista, at least make the right comparisons. It seems to me that people are upset that Vista didn't turn out as well as they expected and are in such a hurry to bash it that they've forgotten the issues they had with previous versions. It's just more of the same.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[spk037]

and a drm thing

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[k1e0x]

The user experiences is in many ways more intuitive, but that's not the issue...
What people say "intuitive" they actually mean "familiar". They are familiar with the old interface, and don't want to change to the new one even if it is better. They use the same argument against linux or mac too.

That's pretty much true. I work for a company that a while back yanked out all of their Windows XP systems and replaced them with Ubuntu.

Here is how they did it. First they moved everyone off Microsoft Software, and replaced it with what they would find later on Ubuntu. (Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, & Pidgin primarily.). After a time they instructed people to "Expect things to be diffrent, and diffrent does not mean bad. Some things will not work the same way, some thing may not even work at all, but some things will work better. You need to approach this as if you would approach an alien landscape, it's not the same so don't expect it to be the same." After that we did the change all at once. There have been complaints, some muttering here and there, and there have been issues, but overall it has gone over really really well, and the entire company is just as productive and happy on Ubuntu now. Maybe even more productive, we are getting to a point where there are very few IT Support issues regarding client desktops.. nearly none are work related, most are due to flash and pulseaudio..

But that's the big thing about interfaces.. people who are not interested in computers don't want to learn about them, and they don't want to learn a new interface even if it is better. They will get frustrated if they can't find their "C:\" drive, even though the thought of labeling a drive mappings by alphabetical charters is, and always was, archaic, confusing, and idiotic.

If they at least expect everything to be diffrent, things go a lot better.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Hucko]

If it were me Id at least change to another animal breed... but you go right ahead.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[PReDiToR]

This is what really arses me off about MS and their licensing schemes.

Millions of licenses sold that will never be used, just so that companies can continue their support contracts, but people have to steal/cheat/pirate their own copies to get WindowsUpdate.

If you, or someone you know has these damn things sitting around, give them away. Ebay the silly stickers off for postage and let's get rid of some of those machines that we all created a few years ago that haven't had an update since SP1.

What, you never used FCKGW when you upgraded someone from 95/98/ME?

Not only would it be good for consumers, but it would also help MS's image as far as security goes.

I'm not a Windows user, but I have several legal key stickers. I had more, but I wrote the details down off them (every character) and taped the info to a few computers that I built.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[tknd]

I told him that he should consider downgrading to XP or moving to a Mac

FYI: Apple is starting to implement HDCP/DPCP DRM as well.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[blumpy]

Boo, I'd say that's wrong, 10.1 -> 10.2 > 10.3 were all huge updates. You could equate them to 98 -> 2000 -> XP (sorta) Heck you even had to pay for them each separately.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[flosofl]

Well, English doesn't steal from foreign languages as much as it mugs them in back alleys, rifling through their pockets for loose grammar.

(yes, I stole that from somewhere, but for the life of me I can't remember who or where)

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jwhitener]

You are correct in believing that any user interface requires the user to learn to some degree.

However, you are not correct in suggesting that there are 'no intuitive interfaces'.

100% intuitive? Probably not. However, it is a scale that can be scientifically measured. And it is very clear that some interface designs do approach the 100% intuitive mark.

I've been to several conferences where Jared Spool spoke, and if you are interested in learning more about the science of interface design, visit http://www.uie.com/

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[lazy_playboy]

I imagine by that time it'd be on to 'OS XI' and using the species of another genus. Or using a different naming system altogether.

Does anyone else think the move from Leopard to Snow Leopard is a bit of a cop-out?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[mattack2]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fail%5B2%5D

Main Entry:
2fail
Function:
noun
Date:
13th century
1 : failure --usually used in the phrase without fail
2 : a failure (as by a security dealer) to deliver or receive securities within a prescribed period after purchase or sale

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[CTalkobt]

While we're on the subject of regex grammer police...

>> s/Viruses are some/A successful virus is one/g

should be

s/Viruses are some/A successful virus is one/

Replacing all is insufficient and unnecessary given there is only one use.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[dslbrian]

DRM? Sorry, i think you're forgetting that the only DRM installed was Windows Media Player 11, the rest is insignificant

WMP is not the only DRM encumbered application. A simple google search can show that Vista's DRM trashed the network performance regardless of playback program. An effect which most people would not consider "insignificant".

Google search

Slashdot article "Playing Music Slows Vista Network Performance?"

User's forum post

Windows 7 isn't going to fix jack, it's Vista rebranded (probably with another layer of DRM cruft since Microsoft are complete sellouts to the entertainment industry).

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[gyrogeerloose]

I'd mod you "+5, Uncomfortable Truth" if I could

More like "+5, You Are Coming to a Sad Realization."

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[nabsltd]

I'll concede that some the warnings amount to pseudo-security, but the reality is that Vista is much more secure than XP.

At this point, most of the Vista "security" appears to be one of the same reasons that Linux is not targeted by malware as much: market share.

There's very little profit in writing a piece of malware to specifically target Vista, even though it's quite possible to do so, and has been done in labs.

Signed drivers, the inability to put administrator items into your startup, and a whack of other measures all significantly hardened Vista to a damned LOT of the XP malware out there.

Much of this isn't about security...it's about control. The signed driver requirement is only slightly for security...now a hobby developer can't create anything that more than essentially an end-user, non-trusted application, and even reputable companies might have problems (I have some hardware that went through rapid updates to the drivers, and many of those were not signed).

I see part of it as heading toward the nasty "trusted computing", since in a default install, Vista has files on your drive that an administrator cannot modify...only the "TrustedInstaller" can modify them. For me, this is particularly annoying, as some of the files are things like the "Computer Management" MMC data file. This means I have to live with Microsoft's brain-dead default settings that eat up valuable screen real estate for no good reason...except that this way Microsoft can move people one step closer to "have it our way...we know best".

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be joking, /. is littered with Mac sycophants.

I lose more karma over critcizing macs than anything
else.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[citylivin]

I use to throw in a microsoft mouse. All nice and legal.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you don't spend enough time on the internet.

At least they bloody spelled it right =)

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[lennier]

"With the ribbon, most features are about 2 clicks away. "

Yes, but *which* two clicks?

In a menu, you have the long-established standard locations for things like File, Tools, Help.

Good luck figuring out from a standing start which ribbon mode you need to activate to find 'format page'. There are no reference points.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[nschubach]

As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately.

I could actually argue that any properly programmed OS should perform it's usual tasks just as well as it's predecessor even if you add new bells and whistles to it. You simply optimize your current code to account for the minor branch in the code later that determines if a user wants to use the new feature. If the user decides to run that feature, then you of course incur a slowdown but if they never turn it on, there's no reason that feature should slow the rest of the system down by 20-40%.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Falconhell]

Whilst I have been modded down many times and had some very vigorous debates, I have to agree. Slashdot has educated me and widened my perspective on a lot of subjects.

The range of different opinions here is huge.

I had to create a new account a while ago as I had been modded to terrible karma, but I had learnt how to be more objective from the posts of others here. I now, much to my surpsise, have excellent karma, and treasure it. There cant be too much wrong with a system that can do that.

As someone who has never been much good at expressing myself in writing, I have got great value from /., and all of the posters.

I always read at -1 so I see everyones opinion.

You are right, this is a great communtiy, even those who I disagree with at times have enlightened me and extended my world view.

There are those who criticize the site and the mods, but it does not seem to stop them from coming back.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[vux984]

MacOS and Linux have both learned from Microsoft's mistakes. The difference is MacOS and Linux have been able to leverage this knowledge and make things more secure and better. Microsoft can't. It is hamstrung by legacy compatibility.

Because users demand it.

Now to point. Most Linux users install software via their repositories. If it is not in the repository, they don't run it.

This is a strawman, because linux users aren't like windows users. And the OSS repositories aren't really like the predominantly proprietary windows ecosystem. OSX users and the OSX ecosystem is more like Windows... and yes, people download stuff from all over the place and run it on their Mac. the only reason they aren't getting pwned left and right is that they are still to small a segment for malware authors to really target.

And if windows users migrated to Linux, they'd still be downloading random shite and installing it.

Most linuxs force you to run as a non-privelaged user and don't bug you as much as Windows UAC does, so that you don't actually disable this security.

Most linuxes don't have oodles of software that expects to run as root. Vista, by supporting 9x/2k/xp software has a huge legacy of code people want to use that requires administrator.
Vista can either:
a) just let it all run, and security be damned
b) block escalation outright, and if it crashes, fuck it
c) let the user decide

What choice did Vista really have? a) doesn't make any progress. b) is unusable; there is simply TOO much legacy stuff people rely on. and c) while annoying at least is a workable compromise. UAC will be less and less annoying as more and more software is (re)written to conform to running without escalation.

The only reason the security in OSX or Ubuntu isn't as annoying is that there isn't a trainload of legacy software that everyone uses that expects to be running as root. If there was, it would be the same nightmare. In other words, the fault isn't really Vista, its just the windows ecosystem.

If you can manage to run Vista without installing legacy software, UAC almost as unobtrusive as the security in OSX. There are only a few UAC prompts that are truly misplaced.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Lumpy]

Because you cant buy XP.. but OEM XP is still available for purchase. We bought him 20 copies off of newegg and bought the requisite mice to go with it to make them legal by microsoft's own terms.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[treeves]

Maybe, but it sounds better than OSX Water Buffalo.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[vux984]

There's very little profit in writing a piece of malware to specifically target Vista, even though it's quite possible to do so, and has been done in labs.

That's true, but at the same time, Vista's security has been quite successful in the sense that the majority of XP malware doesn't work on it, because Vista did block a lot of the avenues in.

Much of this isn't about security...it's about control.

The two are inextricably interrelated. You can't have security without control.

I see part of it as heading toward the nasty "trusted computing",

"Trusted computing" is only nasty if the OWNER of the hardware is not trusted. I have said on multiple occasions, I am -for- signed drivers etc, provided the OWNER of the hardware can sign drivers he trusts.

Unfortunately, most average owners are probably better off if they relinquish control to a 3rd party, because they lack the ability to make correct or even reasonable system admin decisions. However, as long as there is a way for owners to assert control, and take responsibility, I have no issue.

In practice with Vista, this IS actually possible. You can sign drivers that you trust, for use on your machine.

The only trouble is that its not nearly well known enough. It needs to become more mainstream. People need to learn how to sign drivers they trust rather than being shown how to disable driver signing the moment they get an unsigned driver they want to use, even if it is easier.

This means I have to live with Microsoft's brain-dead default settings that eat up valuable screen real estate for no good reason...except that this way Microsoft can move people one step closer to "have it our way...we know best".

If you want to complain about a world where the vendor controls you Apple has no equal. ;)
Though yes, I agree it should always be possible for the hardware owner to assert control over the system.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize ~2-3 times as many people use Vista as do Mac... right??? Ever since August-September of 2007 Vista has outpaced Mac. I mean, according to W3 and Market Share, more people use Vista than every other OS besides XP combined(by upto 6.69%). It's still 2nd place.
/me scratches head
People laugh at Mac ads, that's my point. They're funny. They aren't effective at getting people to actually buy one!
It took until 2007-2008 for Mac users to become more populous than Windows 2000 users.
Took until the end of 2005 for Mac to overtake Windows 98(W3 only).
Vista has gained nearly 1-1.3 times as many users just this year alone than Mac has in its entire existence.
I'm done making you look like an idiot.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Repton]

The normal quote is: "The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is learned."

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[default luser]

They're OEM licenses. Technically, you have to buy hardware in order to purchase the license, and technically, the license is tied to said hardware. Of course, the "hardware" can consist of nothing more than a mouse.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[vux984]

The advantage that OSX and Linux have is a willingness to break badly written apps and not offer seamless version to version compatibility for app developers.

They have a willingness because the market is small enough that nobody cares.

If **enterprises** had been as invested in OS9 when OSX hit, or as invested in PPC when Intel hit as they were invested in XP when Vista hit, Apple would NEVER have been able to pull off those switches and simply abandon the legacy.

Joe consumer can go where Apple goes, for the most part, and if he has to buy a new printer or some new software, so be it. An enterprise has a LOT more infrastructure and a LOT more invested in the existing system in custom software, in file formats, in network protocols, and is a LOT less willing and able to just abandon things and start over every couple iterations.

Want to run an app that worked in 10.1 but not in 10.5? Tough.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[initialE]

If he was running Vista Business then the XP downgrade would be free (but you have to get a VLPK yourself if you can, otherwise it's going to be a pain activating every machine). So I'm guessing this guy went cheap and bought Vista Home on consumer grade PCs for his business?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[syousef]

Max. 'oops' points of cours goes to Office 2007 that manages to hide the file menu so successfully I've actually been called in to 'fix' a machine when 5 people in an office couldn't work out how to save a document. ...and yet I still hear all the time, even here on slashdot, how "innovative", "inituitive" and "how much better" the freaking ribbon bar is. I can't understand the disconnect. Have people tried a different version of Office 2007 to me???

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be better off buying Microsoft Natural Keyboard 4000's. Yeah, they're more expensive than a mouse, but they are very nice keyboards, whereas there are much better mice alternatives than the Microsoft ones.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jo_ham]

Yes, that's what I said. It was the entire point of my post in fact, that there are sycophants and zealots on both sides of the Microsoft/Apple coin.

Thank you for pointing out the point of my post to me, that I already knew. Or something. Are you from the department of redundancy department?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Bonobo_Unknown]

You make a good point, but I'd like to finish it for you. Apple users also have loads of legacy software, but the Apple approach to this problem is that legacy users aren't forced to upgrade to the latest and greatest. The Microsoft way is an upgrade cycle where things like product activation stop working. So, yes things change on the Mac, but you are never locked out of your legacy systems...

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[rdoger6424]

2GB? Bitch please!
My 1GB RAMmed G4 Mac Mini is pulling its own weight and then some.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[porl]

rip out all but 3 gb of ram and rerun the benchmarks and it might give a different result.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jbolden]

There were some business like digital printing that were heavily invested in OS9. They did make the switch, or switched to windows.

But Linux perhaps offers a better history. Here you did have enterprises (Burlington Coat Factory, PepBoys) that have moved from Unix to Unix to Unix. Following for example: SunOS -> Solaris -> SCO -> Linux. What they gave up was binary compatibility, instead opting for source compatibility and loosely coupled software. Similarly in the mainframe world client software went from dumb terminals -> PC software -> Web based on loose coupling.

The real question is whether Apple would force enterprises to undergo these sorts of transitions if they had a large part of the market. I tend to agree they would do very reluctantly the question is whether they would have a choice. Enterprises weren't happy about the move from PC software to web software but business demanded it.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you insert a spreadsheet segment into a word document? It's under Insert->Table->.

How do you format a table? You have to select the table and then two new ribbon tabs, design and layout, show up out of nowhere. Reread the GP's point from the IBM Style guides about disappearing menu option.

And finally there's the whole bit about how the options/preferences are in a highly unusual location at the bottom of the logo menu that's different from the presentation of every other menu item.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Gr8Apes]

But you're wrong in the case of less than 4 cores and 4GB and XP compared to Vista on the same hardware.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Gr8Apes]

and who, exactly, is spouting that crap? Be honest, how long did it take you to figure out to click the MS Windows icony thing in the ribbon to get the File Save menu?

I disliked Office 2007 so much that it finally goaded me into loading Open Office. Shortly after that, the stupid synchronize "feature" (read that as slow your login to a "go to the bathroom, get coffee, chat with all your co-workers, maybe it'll be ready when you get back" crawl) and case insensitive file system drove me into the Linux world.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[bofh29a]

I hope by 'required hardware' you mean PCs, since the 'non-peripheral component' clause have been removed since '06. From MS's OEM Licensing page (login required),
Q. What are the different ways that my customers can get legal licenses for Windows desktop operating systems? What about software applications such as Office?
A. There are only two ways customers can get Windows desktop operating systems on a new PC:
- OEM/system builder software preinstalled on a PC - Retail product (full packaged product) Please note that full versions of Windows operating systems are NOT available through any Microsoft volume license program.


Q. I see products like Win XP Pro â" COA only â" advertised for sale. Is this legal?
A. Offers to distribute incomplete OEM System Builder software packages are not legal. Under no circumstances are System Builders or any other vendors authorized to distribute single OEM System Builder software components such as stand-alone certificates of authenticity (COAs). Please note that the Certificate of Authenticity included with each OEM System Builder software package authenticates only the software components with which it is legally distributed. As mentioned, any offer to distribute an incomplete Microsoft software package (i.e. COA only) is not authorized, and any individual who was to obtain incomplete Microsoft software components would not be authorized to use the associated software or redistribute the components. For OEM System Builder Windows desktop operating system product, the complete software package must include the COA, hologram CD, and manual(s).

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[symbolset]

If Vista were actually doing more for the user than XP, then people wouldn't be quite so upset.

Sure they would. As I noted right here even before the thing was released, Vista is necessarily different from XP. If it were not, there would be no reason for people to switch. And any difference, no matter how small, is an issue.

People had a lot of time -- seven years? to pad their XP nests. They bought a lot of software that works with it, some of it to cover its flaws, some of it to do needed work and there's no way even a good fraction of that is going to work on release day. They bought a lot of hardware that works with XP and it's a foregone conclusion that no system that's sufficiently different is going to run all that stuff. A great many neurons expired in achieving mastery of XP, its quirks, its foibles, its methods. Every new way of doing things makes those sacrificed neurons wasted. Most importantly every individual has had enough time to develop a fondness for enough of these things that the certainty they will have to give some of them up is going to induce some resistance to change.

They should have launched something sooner. Even if it was even less good. It would have muddied the waters some.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[symbolset]

This is because your SATA drive is supposed to take a nap now and then, for thermal reasons. This was an XP bug they fixed in Vista. Your network card needs frequent naps too obviously. Other than that, and video, Vista just screams - when it's not swapping.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[billcopc]

You're absolutely right. My tiny perl script eats up resources while Vista uses absolutely none, as has been demonstrated in all the benchmarks so far :P /sarcasm

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Kuruk]

Installing airfoil and running it gives a big vista "YOU ARE A MEDIA THIEF!!! HELP! HELP!" warning message.

And the media thief's never see the message with their non DRM content they have stolen.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[symbolset]

They heyday of VBA viruses is over, though. Even MS Office programs no longer inherently trust VBA code. Unless its stored in a trusted location. And finding out which locations are trusted and putting your code in there is like second level hard.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[BOFHelsinki]

Ah, all righty. Definitely the hotheads and the trolls are seemingly permanent furniture. Actually on second reading I figured about as much as you now clarified but then it was of course too late to modify the reply. Seems like you, I, and also Falconhell have pretty much the same reasons for hanging around here. :-)

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[DarkEmpath]

If Vista were actually doing more for the user than XP, then people wouldn't be quite so upset.

Absolute rubbish.

Why did nobody get upset about XP? XP is a bloated, slow, buggy version of Windows 2000. XP offers me nothing over Windows 2000 except an ugly FisherPrice interface, and on the same hardware is an order of magnitude slower. Even my graphics hardware can't perform as good as it did under Windows 2000 after 7 years of driver updates.

People don't like Vista because other people don't don't like Vista. It's cool not to like Vista.

But, most of what makes Vista slow are either bugs (file copy bug, poor algorithm used by SuperFetch that actually slows down real-world usage, etc.) or things the user doesn't want, like DRM

FUD.

Can somebody please explain what DRM is supposed to be slowing down my computer? And why is it that a screenshot of a video playing in Media Player Classic comes out blank under XP, but is fine under Vista?

I've been using Vista for a year and a half now, and I swear XP has more disruptive DRM than any I've encountered in Vista. I can still rip CDs and DVDs under Vista just fine.

Your a troll, or a simpleton parroting other trolls.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[jbolden]

I don't know where the cutoff my point was that the GP's statement was not impossible in any way nor self contradictory

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[tkinnun0]

What you're referring to is not DRM but multimedia playback in general. Vista throttles network input to achieve glitch-resistant music playback. Here's more info http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx that's probably already outdated.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[sh00z]

Nah, there's enough left. Lynx, bobcat, lion, cheetah, ocelot. Can even go to some more obscure ones like caracal and jaguarundi before having to take "last-ditch"options like calico, siamese and tabby.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[chrish]

The key was "OEM"... you have to sell the OEM versions with hardware. Of course, this hardware can be a mouse or something stupid/cheap like that.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Bourbonium]

Yeah, I have two different clients who bought new Dell Vostro business computers (the cheapest of the cheap), and configured them online with Vista Home Basic, thinking they were saving money. They were a bit annoyed when I explained that they wouldn't be able to join their Small Business Server domains with that client OS. One of them paid Dell another $99 for an XP Pro license that solved his problem and the other chose to do an upgrade to Vista Business Edition. Both of them are working fine now, and the Vista user is much happier with his system than the XP user.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Bourbonium]

Weird, but I've never seen a Blue Screen of Death on a Vista system. That's one nightmare from the XP days that I don't miss at all. I suppose it is possible that it could happen to me (knock wood it doesn't), but I've been using Vista since the third Longhorn Beta/CTP release, and I have never had a single BSOD. I've rolled out more than a dozen Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate editions over the past two years with no significant problems at all, save some driver issues that were resolved with SP1.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[ceoyoyo]

Not VBA, Visual Basic. The one that makes programs, not the one that acts as a scripting and macro language in Office.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Bourbonium]

If I had any mod points right now, I'd put INSIGHTFUL on every one of your posts in this thread. You're dead on about Vista and its security model, which does indeed prevent most WinXP/2K malware from executing on new systems, even those of clueless noobs who want to click the OK button on everything that pops up. At least in an enterprise environment, the end users do not have the ability to screw up their systems by running apps with elevated permissions.

The real problem is home users. True security rests in the hands of the end user, and no amount of kernel tweaking is going to prevent someone from thoughtlessly authenticating a process called by a malware app if they've disabled UAC or they type in the Admin password without thinking through the ramifications of their actions.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Bourbonium]

Um, they did. You can modify the theme of Vista to mimic XP if you really want to do so, just as you could modify the themes in XP to mimic "Classic" Windows 2000. The problem is that you have to RTFM, something few Windows users wish to do. Illiterate? Write for help!

See also Thurrott/Livingston "Windows Vista Secrets" 1st Edition, page 134, Table 5-3, Wiley Publishing, Inc. 2007.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Ant P.]

That's supposed to be a joke, right?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Tom]

Vista is more secure than XP.

Theoretically, or in any terms that matter in the real world?

No matter what concepts you have, no matter what great ideas there are - if it doesn't make a difference in a real-life scenario, it's worthless.

And as far as I can see, and as far as the press reports, Vista doesn't appear to be any more secure than XP. Same problems with slightly different variations.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[symbolset]

No, no. It's right there in the SATA spec, Section 7.3.b: Read/Write head thermal nap interval.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the reason why. It's because of the word vir, which does have a plural - viri.

Just because they use it, does not make it correct. There are plenty of words I can think of that people get the plural wrong.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Astroturf of the highest quality. Albatross? In what boardroom meeting did you learn to speak like that?

Who cares if the latest eyecandy is available on Vista 64 if you can't get sound to work properly? Who cares if Word loads faster if you _still_ can't move your files around as fast as with XP?

DX10? What's wrong with DX9 and what are the compelling technical reasons for which Shader model 3.0 support has NOT been added in DX9?

What's so wrong with OpenGL, for that matter, that it still isn't supported in what's being advertised as the best OS out there?

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[fwarren]

It is not a strawman arguement. You stated that if more people used Mac and Linux they would be just as ridden with spyware as windows. I submit to you that if most non-tech types ran linux. They would stick to software in the main repos. Yes they are on their own if they config / make / make install or add the zango channel repo.

Most Linuxes don't have oodles of software that expects to run as root because it has that 38 year history of NOT running as root. Instead of 20 years of history running as root and 3 years of history trying to fix it.

Who cares what choice Microsoft had with Vista? The topic here is whether MacOS and Linux will be riddled with spyware if they had the market share Microsoft has.

I submit that MacOS and Linux won't have those problems. Microsoft is laying in the bed of monopolistic, antitrust lock in and putting security last while lying to their customers about how great their product is. They now have to sleep in it. Their products are widely adopted but second rate. Security is NOT job one at Microsoft and their users pay for it on a daily basis. This is not true for any other OS out there.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[vux984]

Most Linuxes don't have oodles of software that expects to run as root because it has that 38 year history of NOT running as root. Instead of 20 years of history running as root and 3 years of history trying to fix it.

Yes I know that. But 20 years of history is not a 'flaw' of Vista.

I submit to you that if most non-tech types ran linux. They would stick to software in the main repos. Yes they are on their own if they config / make / make install or add the zango channel repo.

And you would be wrong. They would happily have run perl scripts called 'mysexypics' in email attachments, downloaded 'cool smilies for your instant messenger' or 'awesome-goth-toolbar' from random flashing banner ads, and everything else they did on windows.

The topic here is whether MacOS and Linux will be riddled with spyware if they had the market share Microsoft has.

Yes they would. It would be the same users, and they wouldn't be any smarter.

And remember most spyware/malware doesn't really need root if they can get the user to install it, even just within the user space, that is MORE than enough power to launch browser ads, redirect URLs, show popups, send spam emails, read your address book, corrupt your pictures and documents, and most of the other stuff malware does.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[bar-agent]

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll, 1990.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[flosofl]

Thanks for the link and info. I don't know where I first heard it, but I'm pretty sure it was not attributed correctly.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Undead NDR]

If you want to complain about a world where the vendor controls you Apple has no equal. ;)

Very misinformed. There are no files on a Mac that root can't change.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[vux984]

Very misinformed. There are no files on a Mac that root can't change.

I said Apple has no equal when it comes to vendor control, and you go off on a tangent about files you can't change as root?

Hint: Apple does =other= things. And lots of them.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[Undead NDR]

You were replying to a comment (even quoting it) where the poster was complaining about MS preventing him from modifying some files on his computer's HD.

Since that was the complaint, I think it didn't make a lot of sense to reply "then you should complain about Apple", seeing as Apple never prevented anyone from modifying any file on a Mac's HD.

I'll add that, by manually editing certain config files on a Mac, you can alter the system's settings much beyond what's possible with the provided GUI tools.

So, from the point of view of configuration editing, MS is clearly exerting more vendor control than Apple.

Re:What Microsoft should really have considered

[vux984]

You were replying to a comment (even quoting it) where the poster was complaining about MS preventing him from modifying some files on his computer's HD.

Yes, and HE was responding to MY previous comment about Apple's vender control, which was itself a response to:

"This means I have to live with Microsoft's brain-dead default settings that eat up valuable screen real estate for no good reason...except that this way Microsoft can move people one step closer to "have it our way...we know best"

Thus the actual context of this conversation thread is the attitude of "Microsoft forcing people closer to a 'have it our way, we know best'"; not some minor detail about whether a root account can modify files on a given OS.

And I don't think there is any question that Apple exudes a stronger attitude of "'do it our way', we know best" than Microsoft.

I'll add that, by manually editing certain config files on a Mac, you can alter the system's settings much beyond what's possible with the provided GUI tools. So, from the point of view of configuration editing, MS is clearly exerting more vendor control than Apple.

By manually editing the registry, you can alter a windows system's settings much beyond what's possible with the provided gui tools. So from the point of view of configuration editing, I'd say its largely a wash. And overall, I'd say Microsoft exposes a lot more configuration editing options than OSX to the user.

Their fears were justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you release an OS as fatally flawed as Vista, especially when you have proven track record of foisting poorly written junk on your customers and making them beta-test it for free, you should be afraid when a viable alternative surfaces.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[smilindog2000]

I agree, though Apple naturally dropped the opportunity to really take on Microsoft. If Apple would simply allow their OS to run on generic PCs, Microsoft would have a true competitor. As is, all Microsoft has to do is change their look every so often, and they'll maintain their monopoly. Steve Jobs is extending this stupidity to the iPhone, which I predict will lose the market-share wars to Android over the next few years. It's Mac vs Windows 3.1 all over again.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[socsoc]

Apple's hardware restriction helps them code for a positive user experience. It would get really bloated if it had to "just work" with every piece of hardware out there. I know *nix flavors work with many pieces of crap, but you have to be savvy to get it going. I totally agree with the Android prediction. Also, i have a Dell running OS X... albeit poorly.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[sqlrob]

It isn't already bloated? Have you seen the size of the printer driver install set that's installed by default? Yeesh.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[Sique]

If Apple would simply allow their OS to run on generic PCs, Microsoft would have a true competitor.

If Apple would allow their OS to run on generic PCs, they would fall into a support hell.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[socsoc]

That's true and I wish it installed zero by default. There presence actually confuses my users and I usually have other drivers that I prefer them to use anyway.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[Golias]

I agree, though Apple naturally dropped the opportunity to really take on Microsoft. If Apple would simply allow their OS to run on generic PCs, Microsoft would have a true competitor.

This old canard again?

Nobody makes Big Money on desktop operating systems. Microsoft uses theirs to leverage sales of MS-Office and their enterprise solutions.

Apple uses theirs to sell hardware.

The only people who get worked up about the "OS wars" are fanboys. Everybody at Apple and Microsoft is too busy making money to care.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[bonch]

If Apple would simply allow their OS to run on generic PCs, Microsoft would have a true competitor.

Apple makes their money as a hardware vendor. People would just pirate the OS, and everyone else would rather just run Windows on their PCs and have all their apps. Apple would fade away if you were running the company.

Oh, and the iPhone isn't going anywhere. THAT'S how Apple is taking on Microsoft--invading the mobile market where PCs are inevitably headed. Their laptop sales go up every year, and they have portable media and cell phones.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[socsoc]

s/there/their/ i am an idiot

Re:Their fears were justified.

[MightyYar]

If Apple would simply allow their OS to run on generic PCs, Microsoft would have a true competitor.

People say this, but Apple would have to take on a lot of expense to support generic hardware. They'd have to massively upgrade their test procedures, spend huge amounts of development time on drivers, hire reams of new tech support... unless their market share spiked, there is no way that they could justify the expense. Either that or the "generic" OS would cost a lot more than it does today.

Apple is perfectly happy with their niche of selling only high-margin products. Dell has margins of under 5%, Apple is over 14%. MS is 29%, for comparison. Of course, Apple could never get to that high of a number since MS is only able to price gouge due to their monopoly. It would be kind of fun to see how cheap Windows got if Apple entered the marketplace. We're already seeing it in sub-notebooks where the monopoly was destroyed.

As a bonus, Apple doesn't get called "unstable" every time the crappy $300 Dell hardware flakes out.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[zigziggityzoo]

It's not so stupid when you consider both Apple and Google's cash on-hand. Apple has $25bn in the bank, Google: $14.5bn.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[plague3106]

Apple's hardware restriction means every piece of hardware you buy is way overpriced. Maybe some are ok with paying more... but when they find out the EXACT same hardware is much more expensive, they may feel cheated... especially with the economy in the toliet.

Where MS has succeeded is that it does work with many pieces of crap, and you don't have to be savvy to get it going.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[jo_ham]

The printer bundle and the localisations if you include them are huge.

First things to go in an install on any boxes I mange.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[mini me]

How do you know that the hardware is more expensive?

It is unknown how much Apple charges for the pre-bundled copy of OS X because it comes part of the whole package. But it would be ridiculous to think that they only charge $129 for it.

With that given, let's assume they charge $599 for OS X + iLife. Vista Ultimate goes for around $300-400 according to a quick search on Google. Therefore, OS X and iLife for $599 doesn't seem completely unreasonable.

That means that you can get a Macbook hardware for $500 and Mac Mini hardware for free! Show me the PC hardware that is cheaper than that.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[CrazyTalk]

I work in Microsoft support hell, you insensitive clod!

Re:Their fears were justified.

[onefriedrice]

Actually, I think Microsoft probably does make pretty big money on Windows alone (even with a flop like Vista), but I agree with you that Mac OS X on generic hardware wouldn't have the effect people hope for in the undermining of Microsoft's stranglehold.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[plague3106]

But you can't just get the hardware. Compare the same hardware specs between some Intel based Apple and another vendor which installs Windows, and the Windows machine will be cheaper overall.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[Sique]

So you know what Apple is trying to avoid :)

Re:Their fears were justified.

[drsmithy]

Vista Ultimate goes for around $300-400 according to a quick search on Google. Therefore, OS X and iLife for $599 doesn't seem completely unreasonable.

Actually, it's stupidly unreasonable to compare retail Windows prices with whatever dollar value Apple might put on the copies of OS X that are bundled with their Macs.

But, I'm sure you already knew that.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[jbolden]

Come on now. Look at the Apple's developers conferences, they spend 90% of the time talking about:

1) new hardware
2) new os features
3) new APIs to use the new os features

And these talks get watched by millions.

As for Microsoft their core business model is the OS providing services for their office / network apps to create a fully integrated suite. Arguably office, sharepoint.... are essentially part of the OS at this point.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[jbolden]

This claim has been made again and again. Spec out a system exactly the same as a mac from a major vendor (HP, Dell, Toshiba) and you'll find it is within 20% almost always and sometimes the mac is cheaper.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple could never get to that high of a number since MS is only able to price gouge due to their monopoly

that doesn't stop them from trying

Re:Their fears were justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of the $300 Dell flakes out before the equivalent part in the $2000 Apple?
Is it the Intel CPU? The Seagate hard drive? The Samsung RAM? The Nvidia video card?

Cheap computers parts generally last just as long as high end parts. It only gives you less FPS in Crysis.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People say this, but Apple would have to take on a lot of expense to support generic hardware. They'd have to massively upgrade their test procedures, spend huge amounts of development time on drivers, hire reams of new tech support... unless their market share spiked, there is no way that they could justify the expense. Either that or the "generic" OS would cost a lot more than it does today."

In other words, Apple would have to become another Microsoft. Think about it--M$ doesn't have the luxury of only having to write their software for rigid hardware specifications. This is one of the things that always kills me about Apple vs M$ debates--nobody on the Mac side ever seems to want to address what would happen to Apple's "infallibility" if they suddenly had to be compatible with every piece of hardware out there. It's one thing to be king of a relatively niche market, but let's talk again when Apple decides to cover as much territory as M$. Sique made a great point.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[plague3106]

You're kidding right? "Within 20%?" So you think people won't care about the difference between a $2000 mac and a $1600 Windows machine? At that point, I may as well throw my extra $400 at upgrading the hardware on the Windows machine. As for "sometimes the mac is cheaper," please, be my guest and show me.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[somenickname]

People say this, but Apple would have to take on a lot of expense to support generic hardware. They'd have to massively upgrade their test procedures, spend huge amounts of development time on drivers, hire reams of new tech support...

This is correct and, even more so, Apple users generally acknowledge that they are running a "different" hardware/OS and so either buy from an Apple store or research a product before buying it. If you install Ubuntu for someone on a stock machine that was previously running Windows, they don't quite understand that they have fundamentally changed the way their machine works and will inevitably go out and buy incompatible hardware and then blame Ubuntu when it doesn't work. That is exactly the position Apple doesn't want to be in. Both for loss of proprietary hardware sales and for the support nightmare that will ensue.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[MightyYar]

that doesn't stop them from trying

Wouldn't they be foolish not to get as much as they can for their product? Profit maximization is evil now?

Re:Their fears were justified.

[MightyYar]

Cheap computers parts generally last just as long as high end parts.

That simply has not been my experience. I can't say the hard drive or CPU are going to flake out - but the power supply sure will.

And longevity aside, those low-end Dells flake out more often and always feel far slower than their spec sheet seems to indicate that they should.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[jbolden]

You can look at the mac threads from around 2003,4. Usually when a new system came out these comparisons were made and generally the mac came in 10-15% below the comparable Dells.

As for 20% being a big deal, no I don't think that matters too much. At 8 hrs usage 200 days a year for 3 years that comes out to $.07 / hr.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[mini me]

The "upgrade" copies of OS X and Windows are similarly priced. The price of Windows also gives an indication of what the market is willing to pay for an operating system. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to assume that OS X is similar in price to Windows.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[ppanon]

The cheap capacitors instead of the better quality ones? The cheaper voltage regulator circuits? There's a lot of discrete components on a motherboard, and varying levels of quality and tolerance options in the power circuits can make a huge difference in the quality and stability of a machine. They can also make an opposite difference in a low margin commodity business.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[drsmithy]

The price of Windows also gives an indication of what the market is willing to pay for an operating system. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to assume that OS X is similar in price to Windows.

The price of Windows to a large OEM (like, say, HP) isn't anything close to the retail price. To say nothing of the stuff you are licensed to do with a retail version of Windows that you aren't with any version of OS X.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[plague3106]

You can look at the mac threads from around 2003,4. Usually when a new system came out these comparisons were made and generally the mac came in 10-15% below the comparable Dells.

What complete nonsense. No one cares what the prices were in 2003 or 2004, as no one has a time machine they could use to buy a machine with those prices.

As for 20% being a big deal, no I don't think that matters too much. At 8 hrs usage 200 days a year for 3 years that comes out to $.07 / hr.

Well, you're an idiot. Consumers don't price computers that way. They don't plan on replacing them in a set amount of time, nor are they writing off depreciation. They want the most they can get now, and likely don't even worry about whether or not the computer will last them in the near future. 20% is a big deal for consumers. I would even argue it's a big deal for business; $400 per laptop when you're buying 300 laptops is $12,000. That's not something to sneeze at.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[mini me]

It's obvious that Apple does not charge OEM-like prices. Otherwise the argument that Apple products are overpriced would not exist.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[drsmithy]

It's obvious that Apple does not charge OEM-like prices. Otherwise the argument that Apple products are overpriced would not exist.

Uh, what ? Your reasoning seems arse-about face.

Re:Their fears were justified.

[jbolden]

First off I think you might want to learn to express yourself without the insults. Secondly 400x300 = $120,000 not $12,000.

As for the rest do you have any evidence for your speculation that consumers set a fix cost based on some external factor and then buy the most they can for that fixed cost? Also any evidence for the theory that they don't depreciate but rather (essentially) apply a very high rate of interest and consider the computer only for the short term?

Re:Their fears were justified.

[plague3106]

First off I think you might want to learn to express yourself without the insults.

Sure, as soon as you step out of your alternate universe.

Secondly 400x300 = $120,000 not $12,000.

Sorry, I missed a 0 when typing. Not that catching this mistake helps your case.

As for the rest do you have any evidence for your speculation that consumers set a fix cost based on some external factor and then buy the most they can for that fixed cost?

Yes, most consumers are limited in the amount of money they can spend on such things. As for evidence, simply look at the rise of Walmart. They make money hand over fist, because they will save you $0.10 on an item. Also, given our current economic situation, people are MUCH more likely to choose the lower priced computer now. Again, look at Walmart. Their sales have been skyrocketing, while many other places are worrying about bankruptcy. If consumers can enough to go to Walmart to save $0.10, you don't think they'll notice a 20% difference in price?

Also any evidence for the theory that they don't depreciate but rather (essentially) apply a very high rate of interest and consider the computer only for the short term?

Look at the various "services" to "help" consumers buy computers. They might not know what a Mhz is, but when they see Apple offers the same for more, they'll likely choose the latter. Some invariably will be duped by the "it just works" nonsense... but given the number of people using Apple, that bubble will soon burst.

News???

[theaveng]

Uh... this is news? Any good businessman always watches the competition and tries to estimate how many customers might switchover. That's not "fear". That's just good old commonsense.

Re:News???

[nawcom]

Uh... this is news? Any good businessman always watches the competition and tries to estimate how many customers might switchover. That's not "fear". That's just good old commonsense.

It's news because people forget. Remember when it was found out that the mailed anthrax came from the US's own gov labs? People have already forgotten that too. People need to be reminded of the monopolistic software prison they live in. They don't have to use Windows, and there is better software out there.

Re:News???

[je ne sais quoi]

It's news because it's not every day that we get to be party to these discussions. We're only finding out because of a law suit. As a linux/mac fanboy, I would be just as interested if not more so if we got the read the same discussions about Steve Jobs and Co. discussing how they were going to beat windows, and I read about the GNU and linux guru discussions about this subject when they make the front page of slashdot. (See, linux is open source, so the discussions are easier to access. :) ) So it's news, I'm interested in it.

Also, there's a sense, at least to many on slashdot, that Microsoft owes its position not to good software, but to its monopoly status. Thus, if the MS execs are concerned about the competition, it means maybe the end of the windows domination is that much closer.

Re:News???

[dubbreak]

..this is news?

I guess this falls under the general category of stuff that matters...

Re:News???

[Golias]

People need to be reminded of the monopolistic software prison they live in. They don't have to use Windows, and there is better software out there.

If you can leave any time you like, it's not a prison. It's just a really shitty hotel.

Re:News???

[NDPTAL85]

The only people who care about such things as 'monopolistic software prisons' are geeks. A very small percentage of the overall population. The rest of the population just wants something that will work.

Macs work. PCs running Windows I must begrudge mostly work too.

Linux? meh

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering if anyone would recognize good business sense. Slashdot is normally populated by tech nerds who seem to be woefully ignorant about anything else.

Re:News???

[FooGoo]

Action

Any good businessman always watches the competition and tries to estimate how many customers might switchover.

Reaction

"fear"

Re:News???

[mrops]

IMHO, Mac is a bigger threat to Linux than Windows/Vista/XP ever was or will be.

For the longest time, I wanted to move to a *nix OS. I kept trying ubuntu, FreeBSD and the likes, only to switch back to XP because of office apps and all business were using stuff like Office Suite of apps. Further, tried Cinerella for my video editing on Linux, it has potential, thats all I will say.

Recently got a Mac (some say I switched to the dark side). Interestingly, I find it has all that I need and nothing I don't. Best of both worlds (*nix, Windows etC). I have my *nix, I have my office apps and I have my video editing. My wife has no issues using it either.

Re:News???

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

I'll be stuck on XP for the foreseeable future.

Quickbooks Enterprise is what keeps me stuck there.

There are NO non-windows SMB accounting packages that are comparable.

My notebook dual boots Ubuntu and XP.

We have a few mac's too.

Once in a while, I find myself booting to linux or windows specifically for things each does better.

I've never found myself reaching for a mac as my tool of choice for a particular task.

So, no - I don't see Mac as a significant threat to the MS products.

Linux isn't currently a big threat either.

Either one *could* be - if and only if certain required functionalities became available.

Mail/groupware is another area which is lacking on both platforms.

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

According to The Eagles, that's not possible...

Re:News???

[proxy318]

no, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

Re:News???

[BlueStrat]

People need to be reminded of the monopolistic software prison they live in. They don't have to use Windows, and there is better software out there.

If you can leave any time you like, it's not a prison. It's just a really shitty hotel.

Almost.

"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."

It's "Hotel California" for the personal computing world.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:News???

[AnotherDaveB]

MS Windows achieved monopoly status because OEMs installed it on new machines. The size of the user base made it the platform for developers to target.

With netbooks, Linux is being installed by OEMs.

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

You can checkout anytime you like but you can never leave...

Re:News???

[dodobh]

If you can leave any time you like, it's not a prison. It's just a really shitty hotel.

It's Hotel California^WMicrosoft.

Re:News???

[dprovine]

Of course it's news! Here on Slashdot, the notion that there are people at Microsoft aren't morons is not merely news, for some regulars it will be positively shocking!

Re:News???

[nsheppar]

Suppose you have some rare disease which requires you to live in a Big Hospital which provides you with some special service (maybe an IV drip) required to keep you from dying. The hospital has a special IV delivery system which takes a special type of proprietary IV cartridge, and your special IV drip only comes in that special cartridge type.

There are half-a-dozen other hospitals in the city, which have all either standardized on some single IV cartridge standard, or have published the cartridge structure they're using, so that drug companies can package their drugs in any of these cartridge formats. In fact, most of these other hospitals have volunteered to package the drugs for the drug companies, or have invested in adapters so they can take any of the other cartridge types. The hospitals even went so far as to create an adapter for the Big Hospital cartridge format, but they gave that up when the Big Hospital threatened to sue them into oblivion.

The other hospitals have better, more knowledgeable staff, better services, less problems, lower fees, and nicer accommodations. You spend less time waiting to see a doctor, less time waiting to book appointments, and don't get passed off to three or four different operators when you try to call your doctor.

You would move to one of the alternative hospitals, but because of the IV cartridge format, you're stuck at the crappy one.

Technically you can leave anytime you want, but effectively you can't. Your hospital is now a prison.

Re:News???

[celle]

"If you can leave any time you like, it's not a prison. It's just a really shitty hotel."

Except it's not a shitty hotel when you have to use windows at work or to play with your friends. Then it is a little less than a prison.

Re:News???

[stewbacca]

I've never found myself reaching for a mac as my tool of choice for a particular task.

That is a very interesting comment. I find my self reaching for my Mac for the most important task...the OS handling ALL my tasks seamlessly. I guess the PC can have particular tasks that it's better suited towards, but I view my computing experience for the total, not just the effectiveness of individual apps. I guess that might be why some of us are more Mac or PC oriented.

Re:News???

[kellyb9]

People need to be reminded of the monopolistic software prison they live in. They don't have to use Windows, and there is better software out there.

Are you saying they should all switch over to Mac? I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Mac locks down their software just as much as Microsoft. Maybe they are locked into Windows for the most part, but the fact is the majority of people simply don't care. It works for them, and they're fine with that.

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can leave any time you like, it's not a prison. It's just a really shitty hotel.

Yup...a really shitty hotel in a suburban wasteland, outside an unfamiliar city, booked for you by the corporate travel agency.

A shuttle dropped you off at midnight. No phone, no network, and the front desk closed as soon as you checked in. The nearest open business is a 7-11 almost a mile away. They have a vandalized payphone with no phone book.

Can you make it to the sleek boutique hotel downtown? Do you even know that it exists? Are your standards high enough to even try? For most folks: no, no, and no. Windoze Hotel wins again! :p

Re:News???

[kellyb9]

You won't die from reformatting your machine to Linux or Mac OS (at least I don't think so). You're just compensating for the fact that most people (non-geeks) simply don't care.

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

Hotel California? You can checkout, but you can never leave?

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

What seems to be getting glossed over here is that this internal, private email, which has absolutely no baring on the case in question, is being released to the public.

What next? Emails getting released to the public of Microsoft execs that reveal personal information on their family life that the public can yuck it up over?

Someone throw these douchebag lawyers in jail please.

Re:News???

[Golias]

If you can leave any time you like, it's not a prison. It's just a really shitty hotel.

Yup...a really shitty hotel in a suburban wasteland, outside an unfamiliar city, booked for you by the corporate travel agency.

A shuttle dropped you off at midnight. No phone, no network, and the front desk closed as soon as you checked in. The nearest open business is a 7-11 almost a mile away. They have a vandalized payphone with no phone book.

Can you make it to the sleek boutique hotel downtown? Do you even know that it exists? Are your standards high enough to even try? For most folks: no, no, and no. Windoze Hotel wins again! :p

Pretty much exactly my point, which is why both shitty hotels and Microsoft stay in business.

Re:News???

[angst_ridden_hipster]

The Dude: Jesus, man, can you change the station?
Cab Driver: Fuck you man! You don't like my fucking music, get your own fucking cab!
The Dude: I've had a--
Cab Driver: I pull over and kick your ass out, man!
The Dude: --had a rough night, and I hate the fucking Eagles, man

Re:News???

[jbolden]

Intuit has made a major push recently for mac:

http://quickbooks.intuit.com/product/accounting-software/pro-mac-business-finance-software.jsp

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows: It's like a hotel where there's a 99% chance you'll catch gonorrhea by staying there.

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a really shitty hotel.

Where the door man carries a cattleprod and tries to beat you with it when you leave.

Re:News???

[blackest_k]

The Netbooks are being installed with extremely limited distro's.

I've got a EEE (which needs to go for repair hence) which I reimaged with Xandros and I've installed everything in the EEE's repository and still have 500MB free and a restore partition all on a 4gb ssd! not only that but the packages are old.

Now ok thats good enough for some people, for a few weeks, but it's really limiting for the rest of us, and now I get to the thing which really bugs me. Linux is open isn't it? So why is it so difficult to get another distro running perfectly on these netbooks surely there should be some communication
going on between the xandros, linpus teams and the rest? I mean if Ubuntu runs fine on hardware X you would naturally expect fedora, knopix debian suse ect to run just as well.

Surely asus, acer should be more than happy to have say ubuntu running flawlessly on their netbooks, right?

Theres a good number of people into Linux who really would like their choice of distro running on a netbook, Wouldn't sales of netbooks go up with a popular Linux distro installed or easily installable (thats is working out of the box) on them.

Sure these Netbooks are great little machines but why do we have to have largely disliked Linux distro's on them?

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you can check out any time you like, but you can NEVER leave...

Re:News???

[rm999]

Windows XP is also. XP is actually a very lightweight and stable operating system if the OEM installer wants it to be (and netbook makers realize this).

With Microsoft practically giving away XP to netbook companies, I think they are successfully maintaining their monopoly.

Re:News???

[GaryPatterson]

Mac locks down their software just as much as Microsoft

"Mac" is a product. Apple is the company selling it.

Apple don't lock users into software. Look at every Apple application. All the file formats are open formats. Hell, most of them are gzipped text or XML files.

The OS is locked to Mac hardware through the weakest of chains, so there's some truth to your comment.

I find the whole "Apple is as bad as Microsoft" meme pretty sad. People have forgotten the criminal acts of Microsoft, and assuming that Apple would do the same. Not that the company is completely without any stains, but seriously people, think before you post!

Re:News???

[Golias]

"If you can leave any time you like, it's not a prison. It's just a really shitty hotel."

Except it's not a shitty hotel when you have to use windows at work or to play with your friends. Then it is a little less than a prison.

Very few people go into prisons in order to make money or have fun with others.

People go into shitty hotels for both reasons (sometimes simultaneously.)

Re:News???

[AnotherDaveB]

I think Asus? Acer? has said the split on netbook sales is two thirds MS XP, one third Linux.

The point I was trying to make is, that with OEMs installing Linux on new machines, the user base will increase enough for developers to consider the platform as a sales target.

The success of Firefox and Safari have forced? encouraged? web developers to target browsers beyond Internet Explorer.

Re:News???

[AnotherDaveB]

I hope they bring out a UK version. MYOB have sold their UK operation to a web outfit, and there's not much choice for Mac users.

Re:News???

[Eli Gottlieb]

Linux works. After I got my mom to dual-boot Ubuntu Hardy Heron and Windows XP she made the decision to kick Windows entirely off her hard drive.

After about a year using it, she's telling me all the stuff I hear about Linux from geeks on Slashdot: that, quite amazingly, it does what she wants it to do. She says that learning a few commands and some GUI tools is completely worth that.

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people who care about such things [...] are geeks.

Yep. Geeks, armies and governments.

Re:News???

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

That's probably fine for a Mom & Pop - but for the smb with a couple hundred employees and multiple locations, QB Enterprise is about the only game in town.

Unfortunately, it's also windows only.
Sure, it has a linux option, but that's only for serving the database. The application itself has to reside either on a windows terminal server, or on each individual client.

So, not only do you have to have a windows box, it has to be a significant investment in either a fairly high end box with an expensive nos, or multiple windows workstations.

Once you've invested in either, there's little motivation to migrate out of the wintel world.

Re:News???

[BOFHelsinki]

What seems to be getting glossed over here is that this internal, private email, which has absolutely no baring on the case in question, is being released to the public.

Hey, have you actually read anything about the case or these emails? The emails published so far have been directly relevant to the central issue of the lawsuit -- whether Microsoft knowingly produced a Vista edition that markedly differed from what they had assured to prospective buyers.

That said I fully agree with your view on privacy. I felt slightly uncomfortable reading through them published snippets -- I was wondering how come the emails could appear outside the courtroom. There certainly should be clear limits to what is public and what is not, because douchebag lawyers are going to exploit anything they can to win the case.

Re:News???

[jbolden]

Once they have QB interface working they probably are 80+% of the way there to QB enterprise. I doubt much of the enterprisish code is terribly windows specific.

But yeah it isn't there yet. What is important is that intuit has changed their attitude.

Re:News???

[Anonymous Coward]

On a totally different note, Nuh nuh ne-nuh nuh! You were WRONG!!!!! You were WRONG!!! Hahahaha!

Re:News???

[Golias]

Wrong about what? The troll I was responding to ended up inventing time travel after all?

Mac users can't take a joke.

[FireXtol]

Who can blame them?! No one wants their product to be compared to a Mac!

Re:Mac users can't take a joke.

[smilindog2000]

I think that's true of the Mac hardware, but I'll take Ubuntu over any recent Mac OS. I'd say the same thing of the iPhone - my T-Mobile G1 hardware sucks in comparison, but the Android OS is a fine competitor.

I think Dell loves to compare their products to Macs. Same features, at half the price.

Broken premise

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Mossberg says:

Vista, formerly known by its code name of Longhorn, is due out about a year from now, well within the lifetime of any PC you purchase today. I assume most consumers running Windows will want to upgrade to Vista.

Which is just plain wrong. Consumers don't upgrade operating systems. They use the one that came with the box until they need a new box. Techno-nerds and enterprises upgrade operating syatems. In the case of Vista, enterprises have stayed away in droves.

Re:Broken premise

[qoncept]

Wow, that's a pretty bold assertion with absolutely no evidence to back it up. I don't have any numbers, but I'll go ahead and base my entire argument on personal opinion like you have. I think you're wrong. I'm sure that less people buy operating systems to upgrade themselves than buy them OEM with a new computer, and I know businesses have avoided Vista, and after the fact, when everyone found out for sure that Vista was garbage they stayed away, but "Consumers don't upgrade operating systems" is just straight up silly. The simple fact that Best Buy has them for sale says you are wrong. People do it, and enough do it that Microsoft markets to them.

And, as an aside, business do upgrade operating systems. But not immediately. They give them time, wait for bug fixes and evidence that the platform is stable. With Vista, that never happened, so they didn't upgrade.

Re:Broken premise

[$RANDOMLUSER]

No, I really don't think that's silly. People (enterprises included) generally upgrade operating systems as part of a new machine purchase. The number of people who buy the latest Windows to upgrade an existing machine are a vanishingly small portion of the total licenses sold.

Re:Broken premise

[MadKeithV]

And that's mostly because Windows is incredibly expensive unless it's OEM. Then it's just really expensive.
Vista Ultimate was what, like â600 retail when it first came out?

Re:Broken premise

[MrMickS]

I don't agree. Personal experience says that people that just buy a computer and don't have any real computer knowledge don't upgrade their operating system. They might buy a new copy because they've hosed their machine and lost the OEM copy that was on the special partition because a friend 'helped' them and formatted the disk. OS upgrades are few and far between though.

Re:Broken premise

[QuantumRiff]

Your argument makes the case even worse for MS. If you purchase a new Mac, instead of a new Dell when it is time to upgrade, Apple gets the profits from both the hardware and OS. If you purchase a new Dell, Dell gets the hardware profits, and MS gets another $20 or so.

Re:Broken premise

[martin_henry]

I work for a major US electric utility and I can testify that my laptop (leased in June 08) had Vista taken off and XP installed. It still has the Vista sticker on the bottom, even.

Re:Broken premise

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Not even in corporate environment most people, users, IT dept upgrade the OS. The IT dept "supports" older versions of the OS till all these boxes die. They might upgrade software, ACAD or Ansys WorkBench or Word etc. But mass upgrade of the OS of all the machines in the network? Hardly ever done.

Re:Broken premise

[maxume]

It is likely that Apple treats the OS installed onto a new machine as a cost and thus makes no profit on it.

You could play semantic games and argue that the OS justifies some part of the markup on the machine, but that's just a semantic game.

Re:Broken premise

[Selfbain]

When my Mother got a new computer, it came with Vista and I had to keep telling her there was nothing to fear from a new operating system but I think my message was somewhat undermined by the fact I kept swearing and screaming at the computer while I was setting it up.

Re:Broken premise

[chefmayhem]

Let's be fair, I think he has a point, that the number of consumers who upgrade Microsoft operating systems is relatively small. I base this on the number of people I know who are still using Windows XP, or even older systems. With the average useful lifetime of a computer these days being not so much longer than the difference between OS releases, it doesn't make too much sense to upgrade the operating system. Unless, of course, you're a mac or linux user. And in that case, I believe it's motivated by the shorter OS release cycle, and the (at least in Linux case) lower cost of upgrading.

Re:Broken premise

[domatic]

I believe Vista is reasonably stable at this point and that isn't the reason businesses are avoiding it. Vista still has some compatibility issues; Oracle Forms and it's fscking "jinitiator" are a sore point around here (and no we don't control the app server and those that do won't unthrow the switches that enforce the "jinitiator" for Windows and obsolete Java for all other platforms). Businesses also have legions of machines that can run XP perfectly well but do not have the hardware for Vista. Around here, 1 and 2 GB RAM machines with lower end ATI and Intel chipsets are common. They run great with XP but would perform more poorly on Vista and we've only started getting our hardware to that point within the last two years.

Re:Broken premise

[D Ninja]

They give them time, wait for bug fixes and evidence that the platform is stable. With Vista, that never happened, so they didn't upgrade.

How much have you used Vista, exactly? That's a pretty bold assertion to make considering that I haven't seen it crash once, it runs everything I work on well (programming, games, various music applications to record my guitar music). Additionally, I like it MORE than XP (I use both operating systems).

Is Vista perfect? Nope. No OS is. But it's not the horror that many people try to make it out to be.

Re:Broken premise

[MightyYar]

The simple fact that Best Buy has them for sale says you are wrong.

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from this. After all, Best Buy sold boxed XP for the entire 6 year stretch that Vista was in development. I suspect most XP sales are the direct result of a bad hard drive or corrupted file system. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the largest consumer of XP at Best Buy is the in-house repair shop. Mac users probably make up a good portion as well.

Re:Broken premise

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of Vista, enterprises have stayed away in droves.

If the media, the Slashdot crowd, and Apple's marketing keep repeating this, along with "facts" about how unpopular Vista is compared to XP, then it must be true, right?

Unfortunately, the numbers don't agree. Vista has been out for almost 2 years. According to Gartner, two years after XP's release, it was installed on about 12% of home computers and 10% of business computers, while Vista is currently installed on about 16% of home computers and 13% of business computers.

Re:Broken premise

[plague3106]

Well, I got mine for $300 USD.. not sure what currency you wanted to use though. It's dropped even more since then apperently: http://software.pricegrabber.com/windows-operating-system/m/64918692/st=sort/qlty=n/sort_type=bottomline

Re:Broken premise

[Anonymous Coward]

... "Consumers don't upgrade operating systems" is just straight up silly. The simple fact that Best Buy has them for sale says you are wrong. People do it, and enough do it that Microsoft markets to them.

Are you kidding me?!? Best Buy retail sales?? Microsoft would put a "Vista Capable" sticker on a pile of dogshit and plop it in a store at $299 a copy if it reduced their tax liability for the quarter.

They are a machine, and pretty much operate in that very arrogant way. Your Best Buy example is a horrible one, as most smart consumers who are looking for the best bang for the buck will simply pay $100 - $200 more for a whole new machine.

And yes, consumers are lazy. Period. They run whatever OS comes with hardware. They don't download and install IE8 and Safari until it's force-fed to them via a "critical" update. They buy a machine to work on, not sit around and worry about firmware updates and patches. That should be either automatic, or some geeks job to do. This goes for just about ANY consumer product, not just computers. General behavioral patterns will tell you this.

Re:Broken premise

[badasscat]

How much have you used Vista, exactly? That's a pretty bold assertion to make considering that I haven't seen it crash once

I've had my Vista machine for three days and it's already frozen on me once (literally while just typing in Firefox). Not really a horrible record, but I've run XP for more than 200 days straight without any sort of hiccup, so in comparison, Vista's got a much worse failure rate.

Re:Broken premise

[UnknowingFool]

And, as an aside, business do upgrade operating systems. But not immediately. They give them time, wait for bug fixes and evidence that the platform is stable. With Vista, that never happened, so they didn't upgrade.

Also businesses have to look at the cost vs benefits. For the most part, businesses do not get bleeding edge hardware. They buy hardware with conservative specifications. Vista is stable enough for most businesses, but considering that upgrading for most businesses meant hardware upgrades or new hardware, most of them have opted not to do so. When businesses buy new machines as part of the refresh cycle, they will use Vista but they are not going out of their way to upgrade older machines.

Re:Broken premise

[Hal_Porter]

If its expensive it shows that the monopoly is being exploited. If its cheap its because M$ knows it has FAILED. Mod me up, I need the karma.

Re:Broken premise

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Businesses haven't upgraded to Vista because it offers no substantial benefit over XP. It's simple cost benefit analysis. Vista doesn't offer anything new. Everyone jumped on the XP bandwagon because it was a huge leap ahead of 2000/NT/9x. From a corporate perspective, what does Vista give you that cannot be had in XP? This is why businesses remain tied to XP and will forgo Vista altogether.

Re:Broken premise

[Draek]

Well, the only Windows upgrade version I've ever seen "in the flesh" doing tech support was for Win95->98, almost a decade ago. That's all. I've seen a few Office upgrades, including someone who, IIRC, had to install Office 2003 by installing '97 then upgrading to 2000 and then to 2003, but no "WinXP upgrade edition", let alone a store-bought version of Vista. People buy new computers often enough, plus MS's older OSes aren't as shitty as they used to be when Win98 was new (many would say they're better than the newer ones), so there's hardly an incentive to upgrade.

Now, the people who upgrade their OS instead of waiting to buy a new machine may be the same kind that doesn't need tech support, but still, "contractual obligations with Microsoft" explain Best Buy's catalogue just as well as actual sales do.

Re:Broken premise

[Narnie]

Neither of you provided numbers, so I took the liberty to make some shit up.
83% of the market doesn't want to upgrade
Of those 83%, 40% will upgrade because of corporate or big box store pressure (aka, you need this OS to run that printer/service).
Another 51% of the 83% will upgrade because it came with a new PC purchase.
15% of the 83% will buy a mac.
Less than 1% will switch to linux/unix.
And the remaining 25% will keep XP on their PC until it dies in a puff of smoke, or the apocalypse, or the first coming of Duke Nukem Forever (whichever comes first).

(and for those of you who's counting, yes I realize that it doesn't add up to 100%. That's the second rule of statistics. Right behind the first rule: all the numbers are made up.)

Re:Broken premise

[BLQWME]

It is a bold assertion and it's also correct. The average consumer does not upgrade their os. SOHO and advanced users may, but not the average malware downloading consumer. Yes there are exceptions as there are in all things. There are still people running Win 98. I do IT security professionally and am the resident geek for a lot of friends and relatives. Guess what, the only time I see a new os on their boxes is when they buy a new one.

Re:Broken premise

[Just Some Guy]

Vista Ultimate was what, like Ã600 retail when it first came out?

No. The best version of Vista cost $129 from the beginning.

Re:Broken premise

[qoncept]

I wasn't talking about the quality of Vista at all. I do think it's complete garbage, but that doesn't matter. To answer your question, I've probably spent less than an hour using a computer with Vista. The point is, ...

It took till I tried to say what the point is to really, clearly see how off your comment was. The ORIGINAL point, and then drilling down to where you ended up:

1. (At least some) people do upgrade their OSes.

2. Businesses wait for stability, proof, yadda yadda before upgrading their OSes
3. But they generally do upgrade their OSes
4. Businesses largely didn't upgrade to Vista
5. My opinion had nothing to do with it

Re:Broken premise

[PuppeteerJPV]

In the case of Vista, enterprises have stayed away in droves.

If the media, the Slashdot crowd, and Apple's marketing keep repeating this, along with "facts" about how unpopular Vista is compared to XP, then it must be true, right?

Unfortunately, the numbers don't agree. Vista has been out for almost 2 years. According to Gartner, two years after XP's release, it was installed on about 12% of home computers and 10% of business computers, while Vista is currently installed on about 16% of home computers and 13% of business computers.

Agreed. I personally have installed countless Vista machines that i've built and never had a major problem with them. I had one customer who had issues with a game (Battle for Middle-Earth?) because the software didn't support Vista.

Other than that, it's been smooth-sailing with very few issues and a hell of a lot less spyware calls.

Call it anecdotal, but we push through 20-30 PC's a week through our service dept. and build probably 3-5 a week. For 6-8 mos, a majority of the consumer machines have been Vista. No complaints here.

(note: That's with tested and consistent hardware designed to run Vista with proper specs. If you buy crap, expect it to run accordingly.)

Re:Broken premise

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me a MS fanboy all you want but here goes...

Your mother purchased a pre-built computer with Vista already installed...

You were cursing at it while "setting it up..."

Was the keyboard hard to plug in? Did it not boot fast enough for you? Did you find it difficult to adjust the monitor to a comfortable brightness level?

Or did you actually have trouble with drivers etc? And if so, why aren't you complaining to the pc builder? Why is it Microsoft's fault, should they write drivers for every piece of hardware out there?

If you had maybe guided your mother on her purchase and had her acquire a pc with components from quality sources (which apple forces you to do) you would have had no issues.

If your argument is that she only needs a basic pc with which to email and web shop then why are you updating drivers in the first place, 2% better hotmail performance?

I work as a HP-UX/Linux sys admin and still run Vista at the house (I do have a play machine with Debian on it.) I have run Vista since the day of release and the only issue I have ever encountered was difficulty getting my older SoundBlaster card to work. Which was resolved within an hour of first boot by a google search.

Yes, file copying was slow for a while. I don't personally move large files around on my pc randomly and without cause.

The backup features are nearly idiot proof (I run Vista Business), save for really imaginative idiots.

The biggest complaint most people seem to have grounds for is UAC, which is one click... the ONLY reason unix/linux based OSes are more secure is because the average knowledge level of the users is exponentially higher than your average home web surfer...

Re:Broken premise

[Selfbain]

The Toshiba laptop she purchased didn't come with it pre-installed. The installer was on a partition of the disk and it took several restarts and over an hour to install. On top of that, I let Vista update the synaptic driver which broke the trackpad in the process. There were various other trials and tribulations that I got to yell about as well. Oh and as for that UAC nonsense, my Mother was in autoclick mode for those popups within hours so I fail to see what those gain at all.

Re:Broken premise

[MadKeithV]

I meant to use "euro" but apparently that's eaten by Slashdot (must be that deflation going on).
Currently it's down to 299Euro retail but I remember it being over 500Euro at launch.
I got Home Basic 64 OEM for 85Euro instead, retail is 179Euro still.

Re:Broken premise

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for pete's sake - pull your panties out of your anus...

The point was that everyday people generally don't upgrade their operating systems. WHICH IS THE FREAKING TRUTH!!!

Re:Broken premise

[Phuey]

So she purchased a laptop with no OS installed or with XP installed and a Vista installer on a partition? If it's the first case, why? If it's the second, why not just buy it with Vista already installed, you probably paid extra for that "feature." On top of that, until recently, have you ever installed OS X on a Toshiba laptop? Probably not... Did you try to figure out wireless support or bluetooth on a laptop running any flavor of linux? It wasn't pleasant until the "windows of linux" came along in Ubuntu. No UAC, you just have to put the root password in every time you want to do anything beyond changing a directory... much simpler. And everyone is in autoclick mode for UAC, simple, effective, and free solutions exist in abundance. www.avg.com, www.zonealarm.com for two that work well and auto update themselves. I'm still wondering why you were upgrading a laptop to Vista for your mother. What feature of Vista were you gunning for?

Re:Broken premise

[Selfbain]

Your post is borderline incoherent but I'll answer anyways. 1) She bought a laptop that came with Vista. 2) It's a Toshiba laptop and the OS isn't preinstalled, it's on a partition on the disk. Both 1 and 2 should have been fairly clear from the posts you're responding to.

Re:Broken premise

[jeffehobbs]

Apple customers buy new OS upgrades in droves. Seriously, check out some stats. And with good reason; each upgrade offers clear advantages over the last, well-communicated by Apple to their customer base. It's those last two tricks that MS has failed to do with Vista, both in the consumer space and the enterprise market. It will be interesting to see how they/if they iterate and improve for Windows 7. My bet is "nope".

Re:Broken premise

[bgspence]

Not true, customers have been upgrading from Vista to XP in droves.

Re:Broken premise

[Corporate Troll]

Hint: € = €

Microsoft Created Much of the Comparison

[spoot]

I'm sure many will remember the comparisons of the screen shots and betas for Vista vs. OS X. It was remarkable how much Vista looked like OS X. In both feature (bloat) and GUI. Microsoft is as much, if not more, to blame for the feature comparison. Redmond continued to flaunt using Cupertino as their proxy R&D. When Microsoft finally shipped the goods, the comparisons it seems, were only skin deep.

Re:Microsoft Created Much of the Comparison

[ben0207]

I"ll always remember (and love) a moment in one of Steve Jobs' Keynotes (just about pre-Vista)

He showed a Vista logo for one reason or another, and just as an aside he points to it and says "See that Aqua bubble over it? We didn't add that."

Re:Microsoft Created Much of the Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say OS X is pretty trim, actually.

Out of the box, you have a bunch of BSD command line utilities and typical server software found in Linux and the BSDs. That's a good chunk of the size. Then there are actual useful programs included, like a general disk utility with disk imaging.

Ruby, Python, PHP and Perl scripting is possible right out of the box. It is still smaller than Vista Ultimate's 14GB footprint, which doesn't really give you much more than file exploration, a browser and a media player.

Re:Microsoft Created Much of the Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry though they are making sure it looks and feels even MORE like OS X in Windows 7!

Re:Microsoft Created Much of the Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

"It was remarkable how much Vista looked like OS X."

And this is why i stayed away from it. Yippee, more of the same crap i turn off in XP. Dont they know, if all i wanted was flash & glam, id have moved to apple years ago!

Still true

[Foofoobar]

With a BSD backend, a controlled hardware architecture and the ability to run tools from all platforms via MacPorts or VMWare or Wine, Mac has shown it is not only a better user experience in th long run but a far lower maintenance computer. There are fewer problems due to the maintained hardware architecture by Apple and no viruses to speak of due to sandboxing and BSD's UNIX background.

It does hav bugs like any OS which luckily they are fairly quick to address, and they have a much faster turn around for new versions of the OS (one every year versus every 3-5 years for Windows).

Would I prefer it to be more open like Linux? Oh hell yes especially now that they are adopting HDCP and other DRM related technologies. I suspect however that the Vista fiasco and Netbooks have caused enough people to consider a switch to Linux and with Apple embracing OpenGL for game development on iPhone and iTouch, it will only be a matter of time before it is on equal footing as a game platform and openGL is equally considered thus giving Linux a footup as well; afterall, Blizzard already has admitted to having a Linux Warcraft client internally that they haven't released.

Re:Still true

[crmarvin42]

Your sig is Awsome and surprsingly relevant.

Re:Still true

[sqlrob]

It does hav bugs like any OS which luckily they are fairly quick to address

Riiggghht. Like the Finder security flaw that I found that was definitely in 10.4 and 10.5 and probably all the way back. They closed it as "enhancement".

Re:Still true

[Hungus]

Citation please, otherwise you are trolling.

Re:Still true

[ceoyoyo]

"especially now that they are adopting HDCP and other DRM related technologies"

Hm? Last I heard about HDCP and the Mac was the day Apple released their new notebooks and someone asked Steve why they didn't have HDCP connectors. Steve's answer was basically "because we'll put an HDCP connector on a Mac when hell freezes over" but he said it tactfully... something about DisplayPort being a superior technology.

Re:Still true

[Foofoobar]

Suprisingly, I've seen this argument a million times... so I just had to add it as a sig. Mixing up the engineer/consumer/career in our opinions about technology often causes conflict. I have opinions as a engineer about technology that differ with my opinions as a consumer which in turn differ with my opinions with my career. Those who make arguments like this, cannot resolve their conflict or at least choose not to see it.

Re:Still true

[pdbaby]

Not a security flaw by any stretch of the imagination but here's my bug the Finder team closed immediately:

1. Open a folder with enough items in it to scroll
2. Move the window to the top of the screen
3. select an item at the bottom of the page, then scroll up so it's just off the screen
4. Press enter to rename the file
5. Marvel as the rename box appears in mid-air outside the window bounds

Re:Still true

[Foofoobar]

Yes... all information you could easily google on your own but that you don't feel like doing MUST be a troll... http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/11/17/apple-brings-hdcp-to-a-new-aluminum-macbook-near-you

Your logic board is broken.

Re:Still true

[chaim79]

You're thinking HDMI, which is the connector, HDCP is a standard for encrypting the video information between the graphics card and the display. It prevents people from using an "unauthorized" display or trying to remove DRM using display adapters/drivers/etc.

HDCP has shown up on several (not all) movies bought through iTunes online store.

Re:Still true

[chaim79]

especially now that they are adopting HDCP and other DRM related technologies.

HDCP is only showing up on a few iTunes movies, though I don't have direct experience I have seen reports from individuals confirming that one movie has HDCP and another doesn't. My suspicion is that the movie companies are making it a requirement for certain movies and Apple is only applying it to those movies. Similar to DRM in music, where Apple is pushing for DRM free music but the music cartels are not allowing it (even though they allow it with Amazon). So far EMI is the only major music label to allow Apple to sell their music DRM free.

Don't be blaming Apple for DRM, go after the music and movie cartels that are requiring it.

Re:Still true

[Foofoobar]

Hmmm... mus be an OLD issue. This doesn't happen in 10.5

Re:Still true

[Anonymous Coward]

Responding to your (current) sig:

'I disagree with you therefore you're biased.' - every Microsoft Fanboi

Alternatively...

"I disagree with you therefore you're a fanboi" - every Microsoft Hater

Re:Still true

[falcon5768]

um huh? First your post makes no sense. Second your link links to a issue in relation to a random (and VERY RECENT) bug that is not what the poster was talking about. Third the bug the poster WAS talking about DOES NOT WORK using the instructions he posted.

So in all honesty? Why the hell did you post here?

Re:Still true

[Foofoobar]

oops... mispost. I shall where the medallion of shame now.

Re:Still true

[Jthon]

You mean HDMI. HDCP (High definition content protection) is supported over HDMI, DVI, and Display port.

Macs DO use HDCP and will prevent playback of some itunes content on non compliant monitors.

See: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11/18/apples_new_macbooks_have_built_in_copy_protection_measures.html

Re:Still true

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mac has shown it is not only a better user experience in th long run but a far lower maintenance computer."

You are kidding, right? I'm still using XP on my 6+ year old computers, and I have yet to find anything that needs Vista that I can't use XP for. Contrast this to the 10.3 -> 10.4 -> 10.5 treadmill. They keep up an 18-24 month release cycle, at over $100/pop. Things which are "core" to the Apple system like iTunes don't have backwards compatibility (try using an iPod Touch on 10.3). (Most linux distros are pretty bad on the upgrade cycle - but at least they're free.)

You also speak of the "controlled hardware architecture" like that's a good thing. I _like_ being able to buy inexpensive 3rd party commodity hardware; and Windows and Linux do a really good job of making it "just work". Now try upgrading a CD or DVD burner on a Mac with a standard 3rd party drive (eg. see Patchburn).

The other problem with the Mac "user experience" is that it still doesn't have the Free/OSS software crowd that Linux and Windows have. The Mac community still seems weighted towards shareware & paid software, even for small utility programs. Maybe it's the cheap grad-student part of me, maybe it's that I'm paranoid about sending my credit card number to random people over the internet, maybe it's an F/OSS attitude ... but that just doesn't say "good user experience" to me.

The big problem with Vista as I see it is that it adds nothing except DRM, combined with the fact that the past couple of years haven't had a big advance that requires buying a new computer. (Contrast that, in 1997, word processing, web browsing, video and MP3 decoding were all difficult. By 2002, CPUs were more than fast enough to deal with it. There haven't been any real killer apps in the past 6 years that require more speed.)

Re:Still true

[Foofoobar]

thank you for proving my point.

Re:Still true

[falcon5768]

you and me both :/ lol since now my argument makes me look like a jackass even more than usual.

Re:Still true

[EastCoastSurfer]

It does hav bugs like any OS which luckily they are fairly quick to address,

I like my MBP, but this just isn't true in so many ways. OSX still drops the first keystroke too often on my MBP. It doesn't happen when I boot to windows so it's a software issue that they just can't seem to fix. There was a huge thread on the Apples boards about the issue, but they've deleted it and delete any new threads. They have released 'fixes' that have helped some, but it's still there.

Apples willingness as a company to treat developers like crap also has annoyed the hell out of me. They finally dumped the iPhone SDK NDA after how long? Books have been written for months that were waiting on the NDA to go away. Their draconian app store policies are awful. Basically if they don't like your app they pull it. There are no rules other than we pull it if we feel like it. Now this wouldn't be an issue if you could just put it up on your website for people to use if they liked to, but you can't do that either. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Anyways, I was an Apple fanboy for a long time. I figured in the end they would do the right thing, but it's clear they have no intention of doing so.

Re:Still true

[Phuey]

With a BSD backend, a controlled hardware architecture and the ability to run tools from all platforms via MacPorts or VMWare or Wine, Mac has shown it is not only a better user experience in th long run but a far lower maintenance computer. There are fewer problems due to the maintained hardware architecture by Apple and no viruses to speak of due to sandboxing and BSD's UNIX background.

Run this sentence by anyone who has never heard of this website and take their picture, create a group on Flickr called "People cocking their heads like dogs when someone farts." You'll be an overnight celebrity...

Re:Still true

[zaivala]

Apple still is taking credit for a better operating system. The facts are, it is only better if you use their hardware and approved peripherals. Most of the problems with Windoze and Linux come from people using whatever they can find (read: afford, which eliminates Mac as a possibility). Sure, if you spend enough money you can expect your machine to work... um, unless it runs Vista...

Re:Still true

[zaivala]

...which, I think moments later, might be why Apple doesn't want PsyStar in business -- allowing any hacker to run MacOS on virtually any equipment will expose the open holes...

Re:Still true

[Foofoobar]

They usually delete threads because it's an issue with something you did; screwed with the desktop environment or installed something that mucked with it. Blaming a vendor for user error is the last refuge of the PEBKAC.

Re:Still true

[EastCoastSurfer]

So do tell me. What did I do that causes a key stroke to be missed every so often? If it was something I (or the tons of other people) did to cause the problem why release any attempt at a fix? No, Apple deletes any threads that point to any problem their beloved systems may have.

If the keyboard drops key strokes, blaming the vendor is the only one to blame.

Re:Still true

[powerlord]

Blizzard already has admitted to having a Linux Warcraft client internally that they haven't released.

Oooo I can see the $$$ signs now.

Team up with someone like ASUS to build a cheap box that meets the requirements for WoW. Use a Linux OS and include a Web Browser, Email Reader. Music Library Software, and maybe a DVD player (if you can) for fun. Then market it as a "Blizzard Box". For the family that needs another PC to play WoW on (but Tommy keeps hogging the computer to write his stupid book reports!)

You could even market a laptop, the "Snowflake" or something. :)

Give the box a white glossy finish, and throw in some upselling of optional WoW case graphics and background, maybe monthly "bonus packs" or wallpaper/movies/??? you can distribute via a backchannel RPM or something (depending on the base Linux Distro).

Probably won't happen though. ... right?

Re:Still true

[kklein]

I switched to the Mac for the options it gave me. I can run any software in the world on this box. Plus, the Finder is my favorite window manager. It's got stuff in there I don't know how I ever lived without (labels, for one!).

Re:Still true

[Anonymous Coward]

If it ignored a keystroke, it's because you shouldn't have typed that key to begin with. Duh!

Re:Still true

[Foofoobar]

Send me your computer and I'll let you know :)

Re:Still true

[ceoyoyo]

You're right. I realized that about five minutes after hitting submit.

I'm not sure it's really fair to accuse Apple of adopting HDCP though. It's more than likely a requirement by the studio. Want to sell our movie? Fine. Protect it.

What happens if you plug your notebook into a TV and play the movie? To me DRM on the movie is par for the course - every other movie distribution channel, (except for TPB) has DRM. The really insidious bit is the encryption between the player and the screen, and as far as I understand Apple has managed to resist including that "feature" in their machines.

Re:Still true

[chaim79]

Still makes for a big irritant, I have a nice 30" widescreen HD TV that supports up to 1080p, however I bought it just before HDCP... so I can do full res on games, but no Blu-Ray movies because of that...

Re:Still true

[ceoyoyo]

That sucks. I held off on buying a new TV when that stuff started going down.

Of course, there's always the one non-DRMed movie distribution channel.

Re:Still true

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much Apple spent to develop OSX? I bet it was less than the $10B or whatever that MS spent. Sad when MS can't deliver even the same functionality for vastly more money/person-hours.

Re:Still true

[Anonymous Coward]

It does happen in 1.5. It may have been fixed in a 1.5.x update - I've not checked for a while

Re:Still true

[sqlrob]

I document it here. It is Apple Problem ID 5691957.

Trailing Edge Technology

[Shuh]

Microsoft has a lot to worry about. When it has come to the big technology shifts, DOS and later Windows have always been trailing-edge technology.

Re:Trailing Edge Technology

[Locutus]

Microsoft knows this and they know all about Tiger, they copied alot of it. What Microsoft was concerned about was rogue press saying things like Mossberg wrote. Anyone who knows technology over the last 20 years knows that Microsoft is a marketing company before they are a tech company and this email just shows that. 'Don't let the public know there is something better' is all this says and that is SOP for Microsoft. IMO

LoB

Re:Trailing Edge Technology

[MightyMartian]

What Microsoft was concerned about was rogue press saying things like Mossberg wrote

Then they should do what they did twenty years ago when Chicago/Win95 was nothing more than artists renderings; buy up all the computer magazines or turn the publishers into whores with free stuff, and then you'll get all the Vista-friendly press you want.

Re:Trailing Edge Technology

[Locutus]

they could and did do that when it was controllable because it was hard copy printed press. They know where the control points were and used them but now, they can only attempt to bribe some bloggers to be friendly but not the entire network of bloggers out there. Even some of the mainstream press has areas for their writers to blog about things which don't make it to printed press or even the standard electronic press pages.

Unfortunately, none of this was around to defend the truth when Windows NT and then Chicago projects were marketed. IRC and usenet news were only hangouts for geeks and it was like preaching to the choir there. It's a new world and the only tool Microsoft knows is old-world. But they do have the very short memory of the press and bloggers going for them. It's late 2008, Dos/Windows 3.1 was shipped around 1992. Every Microsoft OS released since then had claimed to only be better than the last and every one gets marketed as some kind of must-have thing. One would think they could figure out how to make a fast, stable, and secure OS and just be adding API's on top of that after more than 16 years of this. Now, this new OS called Windows 7 is going to be better than the problems just released as Windows Vista less than 2 years ago. I guess that is what you get when they are a marketing company and a darn good one at that. IMO

LoB

Re:Trailing Edge Technology

[Golias]

Then they should do what they did twenty years ago when Chicago/Win95 was nothing more than artists renderings; buy up all the computer magazines or turn the publishers into whores with free stuff, and then you'll get all the Vista-friendly press you want.

Computer magazines!?

You might as well suggest they buy up all the clay tablet producers so they can control the flow of information carved in cuneiform.

As Homer Simpson observed, "they've got the Internet on COMPUTERS now!"

Re:Trailing Edge Technology

[jbolden]

Mossberg works for the Wall Street Journal / Dow Jones corporation. They are a bit harder to buy positive coverage from than most.

Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[rehtonAesoohC]

I'm getting really annoyed at the Mac commercials that constantly slam PC's.

I'm the kind of person who hates it when politicians run smear campaigns and TV ads slandering the opposition, and for Apple to be doing this for their TV ads seems unprofessional and childish.

If you want to highlight your product, great! Do so, and let the product speak for itself. People who are so fed up with Microsoft will see a commercial highlighting the Mac's features, and they will generally go research it. I have been put off by the commercials, and any interest I genuinely had in getting a Mac was completely destroyed.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[furball]

I think that once Steve Jobs is bored of swimming around in the billions of dollars that Apple has in the bank they'll go change the advertising.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[FireXtol]

The superficiality is getting to you, my friend.
Be like the majority of us and dislike Mac because using it is like throwing a hotdog down a hallway.
I couldn't think of a better food analogy.... I'm sorry.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[abigor]

Here, let me get you some cheese to go with that whine.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[N1AK]

What on earth about this guy's post was flamebait? If you really have to mod it down go with redudant (which I could at least see the arguement for).
I actually agree with his point, negative adverts very rarely make me like the people paying for them. I admire a lot of things about Apple, but the sheer scale of the blind fanboyism displayed by so many Apple users has been enough to discourage me from their products (and I know that isn't logical, I just can't bring myself to associate with it).

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[je ne sais quoi]

Hahahaha, I'm sorry, I just had to laugh at your portrayal of Microsoft as an innocent victim. Okay, we can debate about the merits of smear campaigns and if the apple ads are a smear campaign, although I find them funny (but I use linux when I have a choice, then macs, and if I have no choice I use windows). But let's forget about all that and think about who you're defending! They're a convicted monopolist. How many times in just the last decade have we sat on slashdot and read about the various e-mails because Microsoft it's in court yet again on charges of "not playing fair"? At least two. Apple is not perfect, they've done their share of dumb anti-competitive stuff (and they seem to be getting worse), but they've got a ways to go until they reach the level of Microsoft corruption and dirty tricks.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[gmor]

I'm getting really annoyed at the Mac commercials that constantly slam PC's.

I get the opposite reaction. I find Apple's ads cute, fun, and surprisingly truthful as Microsoft runs desperate "I'm a PC, so I'm nowhere near my computer" ads.

And the iPhone and iPod Touch ads are musical, elegant, and actually make me want to buy the device, as opposed to the other carriers' ads that show dominoes of inventory but no one doing anything cool with their phones.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[rehtonAesoohC]

I never portrayed Microsoft as an innocent victim... I said that I despise smear campaigns. I don't care which side runs them... The Microsoft ads (while saying "wheee I'm a PC!") at least aren't running around going "MAC'S SUCK!"

And furthermore, I wasn't comparing Microsoft to Apple... All I was saying is that I hate their advertising.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[rehtonAesoohC]

If there's anything I've learned on Slashdot, it's that the moderation system is completely bonkers sometimes, haha.

I think most of the "Flamebait" and "Overrated" come from people who take it as a personal affront that I said that I don't like the way Apple did something.

THE HORROR!

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[rehtonAesoohC]

I completely agree with you about the iPhone and iPod touch ads... The iPhone ads actually have made me very interested in buying an iPhone. So why couldn't they have done the same thing with their computers? Obviously their advertising for other things are working just fine...

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[je ne sais quoi]

So do you defend Ted Stevens because people make fun of him about the tubes comments? Or how about when John Kerry was swift-boated? Do you base your opinions and tastes completely on who is being smeared? I'm just trying to point out that sometimes one man's smear campaign is another man's campaign that points out important facts.

Apple has a serious issue here, ~90% of the world runs windows. There's no way they would ever make a dent in windows market share without actually pointing out to people who are using windows how Apple's operating system differs from Microsoft's. So, they do this is in a funny way that's gotten a lot of attention. Maybe they go over the top, but I can't think of anyone who actually says, "Well the PC guy on the Mac commercial said Vista does so-and-so, so I'm not going to buy Vista." Do they? Would Windows get a good reputation if not for the Apple commercials? I doubt it.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[Colonel Korn]

1) You missed the point again. He didn't defend MS. He criticized the Apple ads. They're not the same thing if you view them outside of an extremist, black and white, there can be only one pure and perfect OS mindset.

2) There are no "important facts" in the Apple ads, nor have there been.

3) I know a lot of people who are typical computer users. They're not buying Macs, but they are specifically avoiding Vista almost exclusively because of the Mac vs. PC ads. This amazes me. They're largely the same people who forwarded me emails saying that Obama is actually a Muslim terrorist a month ago, and who now obsess about Palin's wardrobe. They buy into advertising more than they should, they don't care about proof, and they're the most abundant consumers in the world.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[badasscat]

I get the opposite reaction. I find Apple's ads cute, fun, and surprisingly truthful as Microsoft runs desperate "I'm a PC, so I'm nowhere near my computer" ads.

MS's first ad in that series I thought was brilliant. (The two guys in Apple's ads are nowhere near PC's either.) It was both a really positive message for MS and a really subtle but effective needling of Apple. It showed the diversity of PC users, with both regular and famous/creative people, and by extension implied pretty effectively that Apple users were all just bratty hipsters without ever even mentioning Apple or the Mac. It was kind of like that 30 minute Obama ad where he never once mentioned John McCain's name, because he didn't have to.

They've since stupidly retired that ad after only showing it for about 2 weeks, and have now jumped on the "user generated" bandwagon with these horrible ads filled with YouTube-quality videos made by a bunch of dorks sitting in front of their webcams. Stupid.

I do agree about the Apple ads, though. Much as I like the first MS ad in that series and thought it was an effective counter-argument, the Apple ads it was in response to are just as effective and funny in their own way. And the latest two Vista ones really hit home, because they are true - and I can identify with them now that I'm an unhappy Vista owner myself. (Though a Mac is not an alternative for me, as so much of my software is not available on Mac and I'm not about to buy it all again anyway.) I laughed out loud at the "advertising, advertising, advertising, fix Vista" one.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[Tibor the Hun]

Oh, come on! A blodied wreslter yelling "You've got a problem with that!?" at the end of the MS commercial doesn't do it for you?
What's next in the MS's wacky ad campaign? Hugo Chavez saying "I'm a PC too!"?

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[DaFallus]

I don't have any problem with Apple's computers. I'd probably own one if I had the disposable income. I find myself becoming more and more irritated with the Mac commercials because they just come off as elitist and snobby. Instead of advertising what they do well they just rip on the competition. Same reason those stupid NOBama bumber stickers annoyed me. The latest Mac ad ripping on Microsoft's advertising budget for Vista is a prime example. Wow, you're so clever! The only argument you could come up with is a childish insult directed at your competitor... How about just stating what you do well and not be a condescending prick about it. Trust me to decide what is right for me.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[m.ducharme]

Speaking as a happy switcher, I have to agree with you. The ad campaign rubs me the wrong way, it's a little too elitist and glosses over important issues. Unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess) it's working. I know in my extended family (including several die-hard PC users that aren't interested in switching) everyone thinks the Apple commercials are great. Clearly, the Apple message is getting through to the people it's aimed at. The campaign may have turned you off of Macs, but I'd bet it's sold more macs than the kind of campaign you suggest would. Most people are not wholly rational actors.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[EastCoastSurfer]

I'm the kind of person who hates it when politicians run smear campaigns and TV ads slandering the opposition

Pointing out flaws or making clear someone's position is not smearing them.

Apple's commercials, for the most part, are pointing out Windows flaws in a funny way. Some stuff is a bit over the top, but the reason the commercials resonate with people is because everyone has experienced one or more of the Windows flaws they point out. That should tell you something.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[PuppeteerJPV]

Now now, I think Apple has a very valid point criticizing Microsoft for their marketing... er.. budget...

uh.. yeah.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[stewbacca]

as so much of my software is not available on Mac and I'm not about to buy it all again anyway.

Not to beat a dead horse (hundreds of previous slashdot threads), but are you aware that most companies will side-upgrade (or whatever the term is) for free from PC to Mac or vice-versa? There's also the small detail that all Intel Macs can run Windows natively. This argument is truly at its most irrelevant now than it has ever been.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[BlueStraggler]

Though a Mac is not an alternative for me, as so much of my software is not available on Mac and I'm not about to buy it all again anyway.

Um, why would you have to buy it again? I'm pretty sure it will run just fine on a Mac.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[tbannist]

I had the opposite reaction to Microsoft's "I'm a PC ad". It said to me that the people in charge at Microsoft didn't understand the Apple ads. I wonder if they tried to cross the Apple ads with the Discovery Network ads and got garbage.

The underlying metaphor of the Apple ads isn't that Mac users are cool and PC users are dorky. It's that PCs are business oriented machines and Macs are better at the hipster arty stuff.

The "slams" that they deliver to PCs tend to be good natured and not overly negative. I think that since Windows is the default OS for computers, Apple has to contrast the Mac OS with Windows in order for the ad to be effective.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[jbolden]

Then why didn't you buy a mac back in 1997 when they were talking about the features of Rhapsody? Or for that matter why weren't you a NeXT user?

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[Jaysu]

I'm not even a Mac fan, but let's entertain this scenario...

You and I sell apples on a street. My apples have worms inside, yet appear just fine. Your apples appear the same, yet have no worms. Do you just advertise that your apples are tasty? I think letting people know about the worms in my apples might just boost your sales. But hey, thanks for keeping my secret :)

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[Anonymous Coward]

And who will tell voters/consumers about the negative aspects of a politician or OS? I guess they'll find out, right?

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[earlymon]

Be like the majority of us and dislike Mac because using it is like throwing a hotdog down a hallway.

OK, I get that buried in the metaphor using food as bad sex, there's supposed to be the connection that extends the metaphor to the Mac as equivalent to bad sex.

Basically, you're being unclear as to whether you're the hotdog or the hallway - given that the hallway is always the implied negative, that'd make you the hotdog.

So, I have to agree with you - if the hallway is too big, stick to something your own size.

The superficiality is getting to you, my friend.

Truer words were never spoken.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I though the ad was generic marketing crap. It showed that not only was Microsoft out of touch with the Apple ads, it was also out of touch in marketing in general: "echo" commercials where a bunch of people say the same thing in sequence started to grate years ago.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[rehtonAesoohC]

Heh, well I don't think that comparing software to a public health hazard is really a good comparison, but point taken.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[DarkEmpath]

I'm getting really annoyed at the Mac commercials that constantly slam PC's.

I get the opposite reaction. I find Apple's ads cute, fun, and surprisingly truthful

This is how your country ended up with Bush for eight years.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[gmor]

You're placing the blame for presidential election results on an appreciation for tongue-in-cheek ads for a consumer device? Methinks your cynicism is misdirected.

Re:Tiget may be better than Vista, but

[Puffy Director Pants]

I agree with you, the only thing that the Mac Commercials did is...make me not buy one.

I feel the same way about political advertisements. Want a sure way to get me to not vote for you? Make an attack ad.

Old News

[ITJC68]

This is old news and obvious FUD. Mac OS X has its place for graphic design people among others. Nothing wrong with that. Vista's failure is not the operating system itself but more with the system requirements and issues that should have been corrected before release. To compare Vista of then to Vista now is completely different. Vista 64 bit is very stable and with 4 gigs of ram runs very well. The old saying still applies as it does in the Mac world. If your system is more than 1 or 2 years old consider purchasing a new system or build a new one yourself and do the research. I did research before building my system and I have nothing but praise for the operating system. It took some time to get used to the new features but given a real use trial I wouldn't go back to XP. And for the flames that will inevitably follow this post. I also use and recommend Ubuntu Linux as well. Ubuntu has been by far the best experience using a computer outside of the M$ realm that I have had thus far and I have tried many Linux flavors. I just felt the need to set the record straight that not everyone who reads comments and stories on /. are M$ haters or someone who had a bad experience with Vista and now tells anyone who uses it they are stupid (idiots).

Re:Old News

[AvitarX]

Max OS X has its place amongst graphic design people that don't need huge amounts of RAM for photo editing.

CS4 being 64-bit and offering GPU acceleration tips the scale heavily to PC for design work. Many 3D packages appear to support PC first OS X second too.

Re:Old News

[Locutus]

"Vista's failure not the operating system itself but more the system requirements"? hint: these two are joined at the hip, shoulder, and head.

and 4 gigs of ram for Vista to run fine on? I've got a server with 4 GB of ram and it also runs a half dozen virtual machines with one of them ran LTSP vm to drive 4 clients around the office. 4 gigs for Vista to run fine. ha

LoB

Re:Old News

[mevets]

mod parent funny: it is parroting an apple ad where mac consoles pc that it isn't pc's fault that he sucks, and pc agrees. The viewer gets to fill in the blank 'but he sucks and he knows it'....

Re:Old News

[maxume]

Without really addressing your point, the fact that 4 gigs of ram costs less than $100 (or $50...) cuts down on how unreasonable it is to require 4 gigs of ram. A lot.

Re:Old News

[log0n]

Photo editing (of the kind that graphics design people do) requires huge amounts of ram.. just fyi. HUGE.

Re:Old News

[aaron.axvig]

Your argument is meaningless. I could run 64 instances of a VM on a 1GB RAM computer. They would be DOS of course, but still 64 instances and they could be used for productive things.

Re:Old News

[chaim79]

Wait... what??

So, you're saying that the 64bit Leopard OS that is installed on a Mac Pro with 32gb of RAM isn't any good for photo editing because that requires so much RAM???

• Mac Pro's can be configured with up to 32gb of RAM (expensive but doable)
• OS X Leopard is both 32bit and 64bit running side-by-side, application packages can contain both 32bit and 64bit executables for whatever the hardware can support

And Before you start whining that it's to expensive, it's the price of doing serious graphic design work, don't even bother with the arguments of 'getting away with using p3 500' crap, if you are doing serious work you get a serious product, if you are a hobbyist you make do with limitations.

Re:Old News

[Locutus]

that is why I mentioned LTSP and not DOS. These VM's are not running Windows but any clueful person could figure this out. The host OS sometimes runs X and KDE. Enough said IMO.

LoB

Re:Old News

[krzy123]

He's talking about this http://www.betanews.com/article/Adobe_CS4_will_be_64bit_but_only_on_Windows/1207258861

Re:Old News

[Locutus]

the OP said the the problem was not the operating system itself( do you get this concept? ) and then says "it is more the system requirements". If system requirements are not tied to the operating system then what kind of magic dust are you snorting? It was also the OP which brought up system memory and the 4 gig number. Again, system memory usage is directly tied to the OS design and efficiency regardless of how inexpensive it is.

Bring up 6 VMware virtual machines on this 4gig Vista machine with 4 VMs allocated 256MB and 2 allocated 512 MB and see how useful the system is. Throw Ubuntu on the same machine and see how much better that runs.

LoB

Re:Old News

[maxume]

My point was more that making optimization decisions that cost a huge amount of ram is a sane thing to do at this point.

Vista is probably incredibly sub-optimal. It is probably a lot less efficient than Linux. Neither of those things really inform whether 4 gigabytes is reasonable, whereas costing $50 suggests that it isn't particularly worrisome.

So again, I'm not trying to say that 4 gigs is reasonable, or that Vista is o.k., or that Linux is great or that Vista is great, or that Vista is cheddar cheese, I'm saying that given current prices, requiring 4 gigabytes of ram isn't really a check mark against something, at least on its own (which is probably why I said "Without really addressing your point", as your point was that you didn't think a sane operating system should possibly require that much memory).

Re:Old News

[AvitarX]

Interesting theory.

How much RAM can Photo Shop CS4 address on a Mac Pro running OS X? How much of it can is use efficiently?

I do whole-heartedly agree, if you need the oomph, Mac Pros are great hardware, but if I were doing serious design work I would be running 64-bit Vista. Fortunately for me I don't do serious design work, and have a larger selection of viable OSs.

Re:Old News

[Locutus]

There has always been the 'throw more memory at it" mentality but you really have to have something to show for this at this stage of the game. Know that I come from a place where in the mid 90s, the OS/2 operating system was getting faster with each release while at the same time getting better. I think Warp v4.0 was the one where there wasn't much of optimization in footprint and performance but there was OpenDoc, speech recognition, Java, and the cool CORBA based workplace shell dished up to you. And that was running in something like 32MB of memory on really slow processors compared to now. GNU/Linux isn't as good as that was in the memory footprint and performance side of it but the modularity and capabilities are amazing while Microsoft keeps shoveling stuff out the door so poor that the only answer is faster CPUs, more CPUs, and much more memory to get what kind of user improvements?

There comes a point where if you are going to come out with something that is about 50% slower than what came before it, you had better have something really really interesting going on. So when someone says that Vista runs just fine for them on new hardware with 4gigs of memory, it's not how much that cost but what that means regarding what you are really getting and that is basically 50% slower than WinXP and pretty crappy multi-tasking but a new pretty desktop and a whole lot of DRM and anti-virus crutches under the hood.

You have to laugh how the hardware manufacturers were screaming at Microsoft because they built Vista so poorly, even some of the latest hardware wasn't really capable of running it very well. And that's after how many years in development? People just keep getting less and less for their money when they buy Microsoft and it takes more and more money to stay with them because they don't know how to do better, faster, cheaper after all these years. It's like a big version of Palm. Deep down, they really suck at OS design. IMO.

LoB

Re:Old News

[EastCoastSurfer]

I've got a server with 4 GB of ram

That's not a server, it's a laptop :p

Re:Old News

[chaim79]

From what I understand of 32bit limitations and the memory addressing setup that Macs use: Photo Shop CS4 (which Adobe is limiting to 32bit on OS X) would be able to address a max of 4gb of RAM, however, since the OS can handle more than that you would be able to load the machine up with 8+ gb of Ram, which the OS will be able to use and assign to different apps. So on a machine with > 4gb of ram CS4 will get an entire 4gb to play with.

Once Adobe gets their act together and builds a 64bit version for OS X, it will have the normal 64bit process memory limits (which I think is somewhere in the terabyte range)

Re:Old News

[Locutus]

Just as I suspected and probably used for email and web browsing. Runs fine with 4gig. LoL

LoB

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

Once Adobe gets their act together ...

To be fair, it's really Apple's fault that CS4 is not 64-bit on OS X. Apple had originally promised to make Carbon fully 64-bit in Leopard (I believe; might have been promised for Snow Leopard but I'm pretty sure it was Leopard). Based on this, Adobe continued developing CS4 using Carbon, as it always had done, anticipating the promised transition to 64-bit. But then out of the blue, Apple decided to axe 64-bit Carbon. Adobe was suddenly left with no way to ship a 64-bit CS4 on OS X through no fault of their own. CS4 was too far along at that point to even consider taking the time to port to Cocoa, which would have been a huge undertaking. Apple's lack of a reliable roadmap (unfairly) left Adobe looking like chumps.

Sometimes I'm surprised Adobe continues developing for the Mac platform. They must love the pain. How many transitions has Apple forced upon them? 68k to PPC, Classic to OS X, PPC to Intel (also requiring CodeWarrior to Xcode), and now Carbon to Cocoa. Sucks to be Adobe.

Not that you shouldn't sometimes scrap the old system and build a better one from the ground up... it's better than the Microsoft spaghetti of backwards compatibility that can be a maintenance nightmare. But jeez, that almost seems excessive.

As desktop support...

[lymond01]

So working at a University, I'd like to say that we have a lot of people throwing a lot of money at Mac hardware, only to turn around and install Bootcamp or Parallels so they can run the science software needed to do their work and research. And they use federal grants to do this. I'm thinking there should be an oversight committee to determine if a Mac is a necessary item (it almost never is) or if Linux or Windows will do the job more efficiently (they usually do).

$12,000 dual quad core Mac that we had to spend two months rewriting code to compile that worked fine on an old Linux cluster. The professor could have gotten a lot more parallel processing power if he'd gone with a newer cluster rather than a single, decked out Mac.

Re:As desktop support...

[Anonymous Coward]

First, blaming Apple because whoever was making a purchase couldn't be bothered to grab an OS X machine and do a quick ./configure; make; makes no sense.

Second, if it is taking you two months to port to OS X, there is something seriously wrong with your code. No scientific app should suffer that lack of portability. And since there are many people using OS X in science (natively, not emulating windows), I'd say that two months and $12,000 spent to increase the population who can use your government grant supported software is time and money well spent.

Re:As desktop support...

[crmarvin42]

there should be an oversight committee to determine if a Mac is a necessary item

I'm sorry, that's just stupid. If a researcher feels they'll will be more productive using a mac with windows under emulation for the apps that need it who are you to judge?

I use a mac in a research setting at Purdue and run windows for a handful of Apps I rarely use. I probably fire windows up once every couple of months. I used to use it more frequently but apps like SAS, SPSS, and the windows version of Powerpoint are offered over the web via a CITRIX client so I don't need to waste disk space installing those apps locally anymore. However, if their had been the kind of unnecessary oversight you are suggesting I'd be SOL.

I get the impression from your post that you work for the researchers, but not as a researcher yourself. You are poorly equiped to decide which tools would best benefit the researcher unless you are the PI in question.

Re:As desktop support...

[maxume]

In general, funding oversight should focus on inputs and outputs, not process.

Assuming that the committee will know better than each and every researcher is a bad idea, and inputs and outputs are easy to measure, meaning that monitoring them will probably require less bureaucracy than making sure that all dollars are spent in 'approved' ways.

Re:As desktop support...

[je ne sais quoi]

I agree, that was not a very representative comment. To combat this, here's some more anecdotal evidence of my own to pile-on: I also work at a university doing research. I buy windows machines, I buy mac os x machines and I buy linux machines. I pick the operating system best suited to the task for which the computer will be used. If I have to buy a computer for a specific purpose, e.g., an instrument driver that uses some software that only runs on windows, I buy a windows machine or I run a VM, or I run an application server. There's a huge number of options for what you want to use and I have never yet actually run into a research person who is running windows through boot camp on their mac on a regular basis. Never.

Re:As desktop support...

[petermgreen]

You could say the same about travelling first/buisness class rather than economy or staying in a hotel rather than a motel or getting a taxi to the airport rather than a bus.

If you have high paid productive research staff it doesn't IMO make sense to be too picky about little things which brand of computer they prefer.

$12K does sound like quite a lot though even for a mac pro. Guess he made the mistake of buying the ram from apple (apple really rips it's customers off on build to order options :( )

Re:As desktop support...

[ceoyoyo]

On the other hand, we use nearly all Macs (no, not $12,000 ones), because they require very little administration, can run most of the Linux/UNIX scientific stuff through Terminal and X, can run Office etc. natively and can generally run the odd Windows program (where there is no alternative) through Fusion or Parallels.

The last guy who insisted on running Windows here had two computers on his desk (Windows and Linux) and the poor sys admin spent almost as much time looking after that Windows box as the sixty or so Macs.

They're really quite cost effective, if you don't go crazy with them. They play very nicely with big iron running Linux or a UNIX in the back room too.

Re:As desktop support...

[Anonymous Coward]

that's right, peon, back in your hole and can the jibber jabber!

Re:As desktop support...

[javiercero]

Actually, if you knew anything about how federal funding works (NSF, and DARPA for example... I am sure NIH et al do the same) there is plenty of oversight. Most funding grants requires to provide report and justification on how, what, and by whom each penny in the grant was spent.

As a researcher myself, I think the original poster has no idea on the amount of overhead that goes into managing a grant. $12K in the big scheme of things is not that much. A normal paper may cost triple that just on student salaries.

In fact, for each $1K of funding I get, the amount of time I have to invest in obtaining it, working with it, and then justifying it via multiple reports would make any sane person think twice about getting a PhD. Also, for each dollar in external funding, the uni most likely "taxes" you half of it. So that they can subsidize the education of little pricks like the original poster. What an honor!

Re:As desktop support...

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the impression from your post that you work for the researchers, but not as a researcher yourself. You are poorly equiped to decide which tools would best benefit the researcher unless you are the PI in question.

Obviously you're a PI, then. Most PIs seem to think that way. In my experience they are usually wrong, but that control is more important to them than results.

Believe me, you have no idea how many researchers think that throwing more CPUs or memory at the problem is the way to go even when the bottleneck is clearly disk speeds. The last guy I worked for wondered why I couldn't just compile (someone else's) Linux software for his Mac, since "it's all UNIX". This was in the G5 days, and based on my code review the data analysis code in question did assume little endianness, but hey, who cares about little things like that when it comes to crunching numbers, right?

In my (roughly ten years of) experience way too many researchers in general overestimate their technical skills. They think that because they know MATLAB or used UNIX twenty years ago and still know Pine that they "get" computers. They don't.

Furthermore, most PIs are pretty far removed from doing the actual work in their labs. Grad students and postdocs do most of the work and the PI evaluates the results. Who is really qualified to judge what kind of computers are necessary?

So in summary, if you're a PI, you probably aren't a computer expert. You're an expert on whatever you are researching (it's your "life's work") and everything else is a distant second. Meanwhile, folks like your IT guy really are computer experts, first and foremost. Seriously, unless you're a Linux kernel hacker or something, start consulting a computer expert on computer issues please!

Re:As desktop support...

[Anonymous Coward]

All this proves is the old adage that you decide WHAT you want to run and then consider WHERE you can run it.

I love Macs and Linux, but they have different strengths in terms of the software available for them.

A little advanced planning always goes a long way.

Re:As desktop support...

[crmarvin42]

I am not a PI, but hope to be once I finish writing my PhD thesis.

You may have excellent qualifications to make suggestions as to what is or isn't feasible, the relative amounts of work required to do a task one way or another, or even the skills necessary to conduct the research yourself. However, if you are not the PI then you can simply collect your paycheck at the end of every pay period, do your work to the best of your ability, and get on with your life.

However, the PI has to spend 6 years proving to the University that he is worthy of tenure, write grants to prove to funding agencies that his research is worth funding, & write manuscripts to prove that his results are worth paying attention to. Ultimately the responsibility for the success or lack thereof his research program is carried entirely on his own shoulders. Consequently, if he's wrong about the best way to proceed, he'll be the one that has to deal with his failures, NOT you! The last thing a PI needs is having to convince yet another person to do things the way he wants to do them. Especially if it's the PI's money being spent on equipment the PI will be using.

Re:As desktop support...

[Anonymous Coward]

I view this as a cost saving measure. Why have a Windows machine, Linux machine, and Mac, when you can buy one powerful Mac and use bootcamp for Windows and virtualization for Linux? I work in an academic research environment and we use Mac's as workstations and for numerical models we use Dell blades running Linux. We've got all possible OS needs covered with this setup. If we needed Windows at all, we'd just buy an XP license and be done with it.

Re:As desktop support...

[Anonymous Coward]

'm sorry, that's just stupid. If a researcher feels they'll will be more productive using a mac with windows under emulation for the apps that need it who are you to judge?

Well, as a CS and math wonk who works at a research university I'll judge. Most non-CS literate scientists are hacks at best when it comes to computing needs. Ever look at some of the code written by physicist? It's like watching a one-armed retard trying to swim the English channel: very inefficient, kinda pathetic, and you just know it's not going to end well.

I will say that most comp.sci folks and some math folks know what they need and should get it. For the most part, however, the other so-called hard sciences and engineering disciplines are clueless.

I get the impression from your post that you work for the researchers, but not as a researcher yourself. You are poorly equiped to decide which tools would best benefit the researcher unless you are the PI in question.

Not really. You assume that non-CS or non-IT literate researchers know what the hell they're doing. More often than not, they don't. They have piled higher and deeper (Phd) syndrome: they know everything about everything because they know a whole lot about one tiny aspect of a single subject.

In addition, I control the computing budget in my department, and so without one hell of a case they get what I buy them.

Re:As desktop support...

[GreatBunzinni]

Obviously you're a PI, then. Most PIs seem to think that way. In my experience they are usually wrong, but that control is more important to them than results.

That shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, it's a known fact that PIs are irrational.

Re:As desktop support...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If a researcher feels they'll will be more productive using a mac with windows under emulation for the apps that need it who are you to judge?"

And there's the rub - FEELS. Unless you can qualify that statement, it's a preference issue. I like Macs just fine, but they are harder to support in an large school/enterprise environment. No, Sally, I don't mean "I can image all my Macs in 30 minutes with the latest OS, hee hee!". I mean update them, deploy line-of-business applications, install printers, update scripts for resources, etc., all from a central location.

You children that claim Linux or Mac OS can replace Windows in business REALLY need to talk with real Windows network administrators. Running an SBS server with 5 clients doesn't count.

Re:As desktop support...

[lymond01]

The last thing a PI needs is having to convince yet another person to do things the way he wants to do them. Especially if it's the PI's money being spent on equipment the PI will be using.

See, I don't talk with faculty on that level so I only hear rumors that that's how some think. To actually see it written down, and not tongue-in-cheek, is fascinating. Your world certainly rests on your shoulders. Your research and researchers count on you to obtain grant money, delegate duties, teach classes, write and assist in writing journal articles, etc.

IT has its own hurdles -- I manage a team of people and need to make sure they have duties for the day, week, month; I clean up what they break; I assist when they have questions; when any of our 15 administrative servers (god help us if email fails) have issues or any of our clusters have issues, it takes about 30 seconds for tickets to pile up, claiming lost research time and inability to do one's job, etc etc. We all have our responsibilities.

But you might take a load off your brain and let IT do their job. If Mac's help your morale, and you seem to need it, by all means use a Mac. But pick the right tool for the job. Use your grant money wisely to get your research done. If something runs well under Linux, buy 4 linux boxes, not one Mac.

Anyway, best of luck with your PhD. ;-)

Re:As desktop support...

[lymond01]

Actually, if you knew anything about how federal funding works (NSF, and DARPA for example... I am sure NIH et al do the same) there is plenty of oversight. Most funding grants requires to provide report and justification on how, what, and by whom each penny in the grant was spent.

And, like most committees, are 95% clueless when it comes to anything electronic. They won't fund infrastructure costs (cooling, power) for research cluster server rooms, IT support to put it together, etc. But they'll definitely buy the boxes for you, and allow you to spend $600,000 on equipment worth $400,000. And the $200,000 you didn't save is the entire IT budget of the department including salaries who is going to construct and maintain this mess for you for the next 4 years until you find more money to squander.

And by "you" I don't mean...well..."you". ;-)

As a researcher myself, I think the original poster has no idea on the amount of overhead that goes into managing a grant. $12K in the big scheme of things is not that much.

It IS that much relatively. Why spend $12,000 on one piece of "ooh, shiny!" when you can buy 2 or 3 pieces of "ugh, beige..." that perform 2 to 3 times as well (total)? You've basically just tossed money out the window? How much? Not much for you...but then you only get one vote too.

Re:As desktop support...

[crmarvin42]

I'm not trying to minimize the work of other, but point out that as long as you go to work and don't screw off you'll get paid every day and your annual raises.

Even if a prof shows up 7 days a week and works their ass of, It's still possible to not get funding, not get tenure, and loose your job after 6 years with no recourse other than to find a new job and relocate to another part of the country.

Professors are like subcontractors in the construction industry. They can make their own hours and have a lot of discretion as to their day to day activities, but the stakes are definitely higher than for hourly wage employees.

besides, would you want your mechanic dictating to you which car to buy, or your cable company dictating the TV's you can buy, you may want their suggestions but no one likes being dictated to as to which tools they can use. You may be the professional IT person, but without the researchers doing their work, their wouldn't be as much need for IT work.

If they believe a Mac/PC/Linux box to be the best tool for them, even after you've made your suggestions, then it's ultimately on their head. If choosing the wrong tool screws up their career, it won't affect your paycheck.

Mainstream consumer doing typical tasks

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as that is confined to surfing the web and reading your email. Windows still has the natural monopoly on desktop apps.

I hope slashdot contines their fine editorial stance until Linux wins the desktop.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[0100010001010011]

I would have gotten hooked Linux if it wasn't for OS X. Terminal.app sitting in the Utilities folder is like a drug pusher. First it starts out with a little 'ls' and 'mv'. Then you learn to SSH and X11 forward. Then come the shell scripts and built in gcc.

Oh god, and then you discover screen and it's all over. You're hooked.

I'm now a CLI junkie. I get my fix from my debian rtorrent machine that gives me my movies and now I'm building a home automation center from NSLU2 and 1-Wire. My MacBook Pro starts Terminal.app on start.

Parents keep your kids away from Apple, they could be come CLI Junkies. Vista is the one true path to salvation.

OS X is no longer the only problem

[CaptainPatent]

Sure MS may have been worried about OS X in 2005, but the problem runs much deeper now. Let's take a look back:

In 2005, Mac OS X was available and rating "better" as a desktop environment in many places, but in order to "upgrade" to OS X, it required purchase of all new hardware.

by 2008, Mac had adopted Intel x86-based processors and expanded support into the realm formerly controlled only by PC. While technically you still need to upgrade to Mac hardware according to the Mac OS X EULA, the validity of that claim is currently being questioned. Additionally Ubuntu and other Linux distros that make setup easy and are very user-friendly have started spawning and are also beginning to take a significant chunk out of MS's market share.

There may have been signs of things to come in 2005, but thinks look even more bleak for MS now unless they can get things together with Vista or at least Windows 7.

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[Fahrvergnuugen]

You forgot to mention the Mobile version of OSX which is now in millions of pockets around the world.

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[nawcom]

In 2005, Mac OS X was available and rating "better" as a desktop environment in many places, but in order to "upgrade" to OS X, it required purchase of all new hardware.

by 2008, Mac had adopted Intel x86-based processors and expanded support into the realm formerly controlled only by PC.

You really mean in 2001 Mac OS X was available and by 2005 Mac had adapted Intel processors - right? Your first 2 points confused the hell out of me.

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[Mr_Silver]

When Apple place a product in between their Mac Mini and their Mac Pro then Microsoft should start to get worried. At the moment there is a gaping hole which is being serviced by only Windows.

I'm in the market for a new computer. Requirements are headless, big hard-drive (750GB) and good enough graphics card (no GMA 950) for the odd game or two. Paying £1,700 for a Mac Pro is just not an option I'm willing to remotely entertain - when a Windows box goes for £400-£500.

Similarly, an Apple laptop that doesn't cost £749 would also bite Microsoft on the bottom. It's a little hard justifying paying £350 more when - if you want a laptop for email, web and IM - a £399 Dell job does that just fine.

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[Golias]

Sure MS may have been worried about OS X in 2005, but the problem runs much deeper now. Let's take a look back:

In 2005, Mac OS X was available and rating "better" as a desktop environment in many places, but in order to "upgrade" to OS X, it required purchase of all new hardware.

by 2008, Mac had adopted Intel x86-based processors and expanded support into the realm formerly controlled only by PC. While technically you still need to upgrade to Mac hardware according to the Mac OS X EULA, the validity of that claim is currently being questioned. Additionally Ubuntu and other Linux distros that make setup easy and are very user-friendly have started spawning and are also beginning to take a significant chunk out of MS's market share. [emphasis added]

There may have been signs of things to come in 2005, but thinks look even more bleak for MS now unless they can get things together with Vista or at least Windows 7.

Wow. You mean MS might have to continue to limp along with a mere 91.8 percent market share!?

Balmer must be totally losing bowel control over the whopping 0.63% of users who roll with some flavor of Linux.

(Going by web-use stats, Linux is currently in 4th place behind "other", but don't let the numbers get in the way of a good story. Curl up with your ragged copy of In the Beginning There Was the Command Line and you'll feel better about the inevitable Free Software revolution.)

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[CaptainPatent]

Wow. You mean MS might have to continue to limp along with a mere 91.8 percent market share!?

Balmer must be totally losing bowel control over the whopping 0.63% of users who roll with some flavor of Linux.

(Going by web-use stats, Linux is currently in 4th place behind "other", but don't let the numbers get in the way of a good story. Curl up with your ragged copy of In the Beginning There Was the Command Line and you'll feel better about the inevitable Free Software revolution.)

I'm not quite sure if you're trolling or just completely misrepresenting what this conversation is about. We're talking about the adaptation of Windows Vista, not MS on the whole. Within that 91.8% of the market share you quoted, there are a very large number of people who aren't willing to switch to Vista from XP and because of the poor support and large system requirements there is a lot of attrition to other operating systems.

Even the article you quoted says:

Microsoft's (MSFT) Windows still dominates, with a 91.8% share as measured by the Web metrics company. But it lost ground in December, as it has for seven of the past 11 months.

The Mac OS share, by contrast, grew 7.4% in the past month, nearly double November's rate.[...]

The Linux operating system also showed strong growth (up better than 10% to hit a .63% share)

This is also what we're talking about... the change rate, not the market share.

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]This is also what we're talking about... the change rate, not the market share.[/quote]
Rate? If you have say 20 users, it's easy to get to 40 users and report 100% growth. Microsoft can never report any significant growth, because they own 90% of the market. Linux owns just 0.6%. Which is simply pathetic. Get real, moron.

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[Golias]

[quote]This is also what we're talking about... the change rate, not the market share.[/quote]
Rate? If you have say 20 users, it's easy to get to 40 users and report 100% growth. Microsoft can never report any significant growth, because they own 90% of the market. Linux owns just 0.6%. Which is simply pathetic. Get real, moron.

Exactly. (Other than the name-callinig.)

It's the classic false reasoning of expecting trends to continue forever.

"My puppy's weight has doubled every six months for the last year and a half. If current trends continue, my dog will soon out-weigh my car."

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[CaptainPatent]

Responding to the above posts:

Rate? If you have say 20 users, it's easy to get to 40 users and report 100% growth. Microsoft can never report any significant growth, because they own 90% of the market.

While it's true that smaller sample sizes are prone to more error, a growth of 90% to 91% is the same number of people as 1% to 2%. I also still don't see a correlation between growth rate which is what I was talking about, and Windows currently (that's a snapshot of Jan 2k8) having 90% and Linux having .6% once again - 2k8. That especially in light of the data in the article you gave (linked below)

It's the classic false reasoning of expecting trends to continue forever.

When was it that I said the trend would continue forever? I know I said "things look even more bleak for MS now unless they can get things together with Vista or at least Windows 7" - which means the trend will continue until Microsoft does something valuable with one of its upcoming products, not that it will continue forever.

To both of you (or as I somewhat suspect you twice Golias) This trend isn't a one month thing. In fact here is the raw data linked to by the article you, yourself chose out. As you can see the trend is not limited to a single month. Windows has shrunk to a 90.46% share today from a 94.16% share November 2k6. The shrink has been quite consistent. Linux has grown from a paltry 0.37% share to 0.71% today and Mac has gone from 5.39% to 8.21%. Every one of these changes may jump around a bit month-to-month but the overall trend is very apparent. Unless MS gets its act together there's little reason that won't continue.

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't. The only thing MS has going for them is their large legacy software base, which in turn relies on quirks and inconsistencies in previous instalments of their operating system.

They can try to wrap their product up in a nice flashy GUI and fluff their customers through marketing, but at the end of the day, they're stuck with an inherently brittle environment that their current software and hardware culture is built on.

This is why they're pushing hard into 'the cloud' - as a last ditch effort to keep control of their software on the platforms they want.

Sadly, this is going to eventually mariginalize them, as the new coming of thin clients and development thereof is being driven by Google. The day Microsoft lets go of legacy support is the day they lose the OS game.

Re:OS X is no longer the only problem

[Golias]

A jump from just over 5% to just over 8% is fantastic news for Apple's bottom line.

A jump from 0.37% to 0.71% makes Linux fanboys' legs tingle.

But neither development is "dire" news for Microsoft, who continues to make money hand-over-fist, and continues to retain absolute dominance of the OS market.

Maybe something like this

[ciaohound]

"Better ingredients. Better OS. Papa Steve's."

Re:Maybe something like this

[rehtonAesoohC]

Haha, if I hadn't posted already - I'd mod that funny ;-)

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[nawcom]

Parents keep your kids away from Apple, they could be come CLI Junkies. Vista is the one true path to salvation.

Gahh!!! If you follow the downward spiral even more you might end up watching those movies you downloaded with rtorrent with mplayer via aalib!!! You might as well sell your sole to Richard Stall..erm Satan!!

heh :-P

Vista the bloated pig

[ianare]

Russell went on to defend Vista, specifically its ability to "run on a very wide-ranging set of systems from the minimally capable to the incredibly capable," he said. "Apple doesn't do that."

Riiiiight. Apple was able to slim down OS X to run on an ARM smartphone, can MS do the same with Vista ? Oh yeah that's right, they had to extend the life of XP just for the netbook market, cause there's no way Vista could run on that hardware, and they were afraid of Linux taking over.
I can't see how this guy could think that, did he not ever use Vista ?

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[Piranhaa]

I even tried to 'slim' down my VISTA install (I figured I'd dual boot it with my OSX install). I disabled every service I could, leaving on the necessities (network shares, wireless, etc). I dropped from 700-800MB memory usage down to 400-500MB. I couldn't get it any lower. 400-500MB FOR A FREAKING OPERATING SYSTEM. Last I checked, XP could be slimmed down to run 85MB ram at idle...

It proves how efficient a BSD kernel can really be, even with all the latest and greatest features. Sure, Apple disables a LOT of stuff on their iPhone(Touch)/AppleTV compared to OSX (even copy and paste), but stripping down Vista from its 10GB/800MB footprint? Please!

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[hey!]

Well, to be fair, you don't get anything like the full OSX on the iPhone.

Windows XP Embedded runs on 32MB each of RAM and ROM, which is certainly smartphone territory. I don't think there's any reason that, stripped of all its bells and whistles, that the kernel and core operating system from Vista could not run on a modern smartphone. The base iPhone model is a fairly hefty chunk of computing power, after all, with 128MB of DRAM, 4GB of flash, and a 667 Mhz ARM processor. That certainly would be enough to run a version of Vista stripped down for smartphone use.

Of course, none of this matters that much since we don't have binary OR source compatibility between the desktop and mobile OS offerings from either MS or Apple. What matters is how easily developers move between a desktop OS and its mobile counterpart, in the case of Vista that would be the various Windows CE flavored operating systems. I think Microsoft suffers by comparison here because (a) it has a more complicated product line and (b) because developing for Apple platforms is easier to begin with, setting the bar lower for developers switching focus to mobile apps.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[krakelohm]

I agree that OS X is a better OS then VISTA/XP but saying that the iPhone runs on OS X is a little naive. That would be akin to saying the Windows XP has been slimmed down to Windows Mobile.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[Anonymous Coward]

Vista runs just fine on my netbook (MSI Wind U100). It originally came with XP, but since I'm used to Vista from my desktop PC, i put Vista on it. No problems.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[Anonymous Coward]

no Microsoft has windows CE which runs al almost any architecture (arm, mips, x86, 68K, etc) and the have windows XP embeded edition. it runs on 128mb flash and uses 40mb ram out of the box. check out HPs thin clients. oh and in case if you didnt know, Microsoft ha been at the hand held marked for some time. in addition they have an OS running on some more exotic hardware. xbox and xbob360 come to mind and they have a tiny about of memory considering what they are doing

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[UnknowingFool]

iPhone is a stripped down version of OS X. Technically, Windows Mobile (or CE) isn't the same codebase as Windows for desktops or servers. It was written just for mobile applications and shares many of the APIs, but they just call it Windows for naming sake. WindowsXP Embedded is a stripped down version of XP but that's for embedded systems like ATMs. It's pretty confusing.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[UnknowingFool]

Windows XP Embedded runs on 32MB each of RAM and ROM, which is certainly smartphone territory. I don't think there's any reason that, stripped of all its bells and whistles, that the kernel and core operating system from Vista could not run on a modern smartphone. The base iPhone model is a fairly hefty chunk of computing power, after all, with 128MB of DRAM, 4GB of flash, and a 667 Mhz ARM processor. That certainly would be enough to run a version of Vista stripped down for smartphone use.

True however XP Embedded isn't designated for smart phones. It is designated for larger devices like ATMs. Windows CE or Mobile is for phones which is not the same codebase as Windows XP or Vista or even 98. I would think that all the efforts MS put into Vista with security, DRM, and Aero may have to be stripped out to work on a smartphone. It's not like they don't have their hands with Vista on regular computers.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[ianare]

No, it wouldn't. Under the hood, winCE is a completely different OS, with different APIs and libraries. OS X on iphone is derived from 'regular' OS X. Sure they stripped out a bunch of stuff, but fundamentaly it's the same OS, using the same libraries where applicable.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[hey!]

Fair enough. But a great deal of Mac OSX is "stripped out" of the iPhone too.

What I'm saying is that the fact that Mac OSX (in a sense) runs on smart phones and Vista does not says nothing about whether Vista is "bloated". You have to have a consistent definition of what "sameness" means between platforms. If stripping unneeded or unworkable pieces from Vista would make it "not Vista", than the same benchmark has to be applied to the iPhone OS and its relationship to Mac OSX.

The fact that there is no mobile OS that shares core OS code with Vista has nothing to do with Vista's bloatedness, and everything to do with the fact they already have a perfectly functional core OS for small devices.

Personally, I think Vista's problems come from a loss of focus at Microsoft. They have too many products and too many competing interests.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[UnknowingFool]

What I'm saying is that the fact that Mac OSX (in a sense) runs on smart phones and Vista does not says nothing about whether Vista is "bloated". You have to have a consistent definition of what "sameness" means between platforms. If stripping unneeded or unworkable pieces from Vista would make it "not Vista", than the same benchmark has to be applied to the iPhone OS and its relationship to Mac OSX.

The fact that there is no mobile OS that shares core OS code with Vista has nothing to do with Vista's bloatedness, and everything to do with the fact they already have a perfectly functional core OS for small devices.

It may be possible to get Vista on small devices. The fact that MS hasn't been able to do that with Windows desktop core OS in general may be a testament to their organizational challenges as opposed to technical considerations, we don't know since can't see the source code. I remember that Apple delayed Leopard due in part to their OS developers working on the iPhone OS because resources are not unlimited. However considering that MS found it easier to write and maintain a new core all this time rather than adopt the existing core may indicate something.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[dunkelfalke]

windows ce started more than 10 years ago. back then mobile device cpus were MUCH weaker and even the better devices had only 32 mb ram. at that time porting of a desktop windows wasn't feasible.

and now there is a huge codebase of existing applications for windows ce/mobile. it would be very difficult to migrate to the nt core and retain the compatiblity with all those apps.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[whackco]

Wow - what uninformed drivel. I own two netbooks (Acer One and HP) and I have vista on both. The Acer came with XP and I used an external DVD to install Vista. The reason they come with XP is COST not performance. Vista is > XP in many ways (memory management, security, etc) if you actually spent any time researching these things you might actually sound intelligent.

Re:Vista the bloated pig

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... I have Vista running on a 6-year-old 2GHz Dell notebook and it works just fine. Granted, I turned off most of the effects and such, but it runs as fast as XP Pro (what the notebook originally came with). So claiming that notebooks couldn't run Vista on hardware that was current when it came out is not true.

shooting the messenger...

[Jodka]

"A premium experience as defined by Walt = Apple. This is why we need to address [the column]."

That suggests that when Microsoft received reports of a competitor offering a superior product that executives regarded the reports themselves as the problem and not Microsoft's deficient offerings; Warrier writes of addressing Mossberg's column, not of addressing the problems with Microsoft's planning and development processes which led them to an inferior market position.

Blaming someone outside the organization is smart corporate politics because it does not make enemies inside your own organization who might retaliate against you. But then maybe that is the problem with Microsoft management, that it is full of shrewd corporate ladder-climbing types instead of inspired artists and engineers.

Re:shooting the messenger...

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent UP!

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Smidge207]

CLITerminal.app Junkies.

So, Monsieur Trollaxor, you're saying they could become clit junkies?

=Smidge=

Why People Said No to Vista

[mfh]

What Microsoft should really have considered was why, even before they released it, customers were ready to say NO to Vista.

Microsoft didn't sell the reason people needed Vista. They polished a dashboard up with some glassy looking graphics and slapped a pricetag on it. That's not relevant to 99% of users. Most people use their computers for the internet, or for writing letters. Could Vista do anything like that better than XP? No. And there's your answer.

If Microsoft wanted to sell Vista, they should have examined what the main concerns are of people and acted on them. Most people don't care about what is happening behind the scenes... that's what nerds are for. Most people care about what the computers can do for them.

Now if they wanted to sell Vista, they should have got Jerry Seinfeld to do the Vista commercials from the beginning, and keep Bill Gates out of them. Seinfeld would simply sell the reason people need to upgrade to Vista which is for security and for expanded multi-media capability.

Jerry could have also addressed most of the user objections to Vista openly and with a dash of dry comedy that people tend to admire in the comedian.

But they chose to do a faceless monolithic kind of ad campaign, to combat Apple's ads but that actually made people think about how good Apple is compared to windows which was the kicker-backfire!!!! OMG yes.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[UltraAyla]

Agreed on almost all accounts. Like you said, Vista does some new things, but most of it is not relevant for the user experience, really. Vista is different from XP, and I actually rather like it, but I will not be upgrading any computers to it - period. It's just not worth the cost. If a computer comes with it, that's nice - I'll take it - but any computer with XP on it stays until I have a reason to upgrade.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[badasscat]

It's just not worth the cost. If a computer comes with it, that's nice - I'll take it

You may come to regret that attitude, as I have. I needed to buy a new laptop (old one broke) and I considered whether I should pay extra to get a new XP license with it, but because this was an unexpected purchase I ended up deciding to save the money and go with Vista.

Big mistake.

For one thing, I discovered Vista's DPC latency is always, always worse than XP. This is a big deal for me as I record music, not professionally, but for myself and it's one of the things I use my computer for. Basically can't do it in Vista, the OS defers too many procedure calls.

And I've spent literally *days* now trying to get the OS to run the way I want it to run, figuring out what I can safely shut off and basically trying to streamline it to where I don't have a mess of useless junk running all the time and slowing down my system. (I have a ThinkPad, so I'm not talking about crapware that came pre-installed, I'm talking about Vista processes, services, etc.)

I actually ended up turning Aero off and going back to the Vista Basic interface. Aero is just tiring to look at after a while, and seems to serve no real purpose. I see no justification whatsoever for dedicating all those resources to it.

Someone said in another thread about Vista that while it's basically a functional OS, it fails at what an OS is supposed to do and that's let you run the programs you want to run without getting in the way. It is instead an impediment. It's like a spoiled child constantly begging for attention and throwing tantrums when you don't give it any. I feel like I need to babysit it all the time; I am literally working more on Vista than I am doing anything productive on my computer.

If I had it to do again, I would spend the extra money for the XP downgrade.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[hansamurai]

Your answer to Vista failing is Jerry Seinfeld? What a weird world I live in.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[mabhatter654]

Using Jerry made no sense anyway.. what's his shtick? Pointing out absurdity in the status quo... stupid things everybody does. Translate that to computers and he's advertising for the wrong company... think about it.

Vista was an OS about nothing. It's a nice upgrade, I use it every day at work. It took some suffering to get new version of some apps but most had free updates. All the "gee wiz" features geeks might like were canned. They added MCE in for "free" to Premium. They also crippled the "normal" versions from doing "real" work even further. If you have a happy XP box there is nothing to gain with it. If you use lots of tools the pain getting them to work has probably been bad or costly.

Hopefully Apple will step up the OS wars this round... talk the smack on the street. It'd be fun to see Apple & Microsoft ad-battle (like in zoolander) right before the next OS cycle.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[Tony Hoyle]

You could use Win2008 in desktop mode. It's vista from the other end... starts with everything switched off and you enable only what you need.

It's actually quite snappy.. bit of a memory hog but not too bad, and would have made a worthy successor to XP if it had been released in that form in the first place.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

I am literally working more on Vista than I am doing anything productive on my computer.

This exactly the reason why I ditched Windows for OS X from the get go. I had not upgraded to XP, and was still using Win98 for audio production when the choice to upgrade to XP or switch platforms became available. With a background of always building my own systems, and then working 75% of the time to get the OS out of the way of production (and this had been going on since Win 3.1 days, when getting the timing of MIDI to not be hampered by the OS was an ongoing chore...), the choice was an easy one. I would have invested heavily in Apple at the time had I the money, as I knew OS X was going to be a great option and savior for the company down the road.

Multimedia my ass. MS couldn't multimedia themselves out a brown paper bag. They have nothing to offer but half baked products delivered by the likes of marketers and other assorted bean-counters. This weakness is the reason they fear.

Delusional to the last.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

Seinfeld - Show about nothing

Microsoft - OS about...

Mij

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[stewbacca]

Windows has a giant market share that makes it the first priority for most program compatibility.

This argument hasn't been relative for the past 10 years or so. For a little while in the mid 90s I was sweating "program compatibility" (as a Mac user) but then the Internets took over.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[gyrogeerloose]

Think that's weird, try this.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[Zan Lynx]

I agree. 2008 makes a great workstation. However, the price tag is a bit steep. I get it at work as part of a MSDN subscription. I've also heard you can pick it up free if you go to certain Microsoft marketing events.

Re:Why People Said No to Vista

[Bourbonium]

If you want to use a computer for high-end audio or video work, spend the extra money on a Mac.

Microsoft Bailout???

[Timtimes]

Microsoft might be looking for a bailout right after Congress gets through with Detroit? Makes sense if you think about it. Both Microsoft and Detroit have (or should have known) for many, many years what was wrong with their products. Detroit ignored the fuel crises of the 70's and Microsoft ignored the instability and increasing difficulty users had keeping their systems stable. Other similarities exist between Detroit and Redmond, in that both seem unable to properly address the known issues in their product offerings. Vista puts a flashier face (lipstick on a pig - too soon?) on a flawed O/S and GM gives us a freakin' hybrid Tahoe? Yeah, and the people who made those craptastic decisions receive HUGE financial compensation and really don't give a rat's behind what you and I think. Don't worry though. I'm being a tad bit melodramatic. Microsoft, (like GM at one time...) has more money than God and is, in the current venacular...too large to fail. Enjoy.

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[operagost]

Some people need a large passenger or towing vehicle, so there's a place for hybrid Tahoe. Not everyone is a single urban geek like the average Slashdotter, who can get by with a Segway.

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[Timtimes]

Absolutely, but it seems like it's being promoted a little too 'front row, center' and leaves a different impression in the minds of many consumers than I'm sure GM intended. On the other hand, feel free to invest heavily in American auto companies right now. I hear they're doing quite well. Enjoy.

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[Golias]

That could be tough, because they backed the wrong horse.

While the UAW as well as the corporate overlords they "fight" have both been steadfast givers to Democrats, Microsoft has only recently gotten into the politics game, and have mostly backed Republicans (in spite of being based in a blueish-purple state.)

Meanwhile Apple added Al Gore to their board of directors.

The Democrat-dominated Congress & White House response to a Microsoft bailout plea would inevitably be "no soup for you!"

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[cashman73]

Great! All we need now is for Steve Ballmer to go into a Congressional subcommittee hearing with his tin cup out asking for money . . . only to start throwing chairs at the subcommittee chairs for not getting what he wants!

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[domatic]

Import cars can perfectly replace Detroit cars in that they take exactly the same fuel and can drive on exactly the same roads. Furthermore, for any class of vehicle Detroit makes there is an import counterpart. Basically there is next to no switching cost with Detroit's competitors.

MS is in a more enviable position that Detroit. Countless commercial and internal bespoke applications implicitly assume Windows+Office as a dependency. While it is possible to switch away from MS, it is immediately costly and time consuming. There is no drop-in replacement for MS products that is 100% compatible with no effort required on the part of the switching organization. This interlocked ecosystem means that MS enjoys lock-in over most of their customers and that leaves them far more free to abuse customers and partners than Detroit can. If a Big Three automaker had done a similar thing to a business partner as MS recently did to HP, they'd actually have to exert real money and effort to keep that partner. This is not so for MS.

There is growing awareness that this situation is not healthy but this awareness will result in a drawn out stagnation. I seriously doubt we'll have the satisfaction of seeing something terrible happen to MS any time soon.

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[Tony Hoyle]

OTOH a car wears out in a few years. An XP install can theoretically run forever doing the same thing provided the underlying hardware can be made to run it - and the PC as a platform isn't going anywhere nor is it in any trouble.

So if MS went bust tomorrow, once the partying had finished the situation would be exactly as it is today with no change. Companies would step in to offer support, and over a period of a few years we would either all transition to a new OS or to 'new windows' once the IP had been sold to the highest bidder.

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[jbolden]

They switched horses under Clinton. Microsoft was for a long time active in pro-gay rights and Seattle public transportation issues (both democratic). During the anti-trust fight they were attacked from both sides (because Novell was Republican) but eventually the Republicans supported Microsoft.

Fundamentally it is a pretty democratic company.

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[Golias]

Their internal policies may have always been rather progressive (in part as a reflection the local culture around their corporate campus), but prior to the anti-trust case, they were (for the most part) non-participants in Washington politics.

When they did enter, they found more foothold with Republicans who were observing that the whole NASDAQ tended to move in pretty much the exact same direction as MSFT (an early precursor to the "too big to fail" dogma, perhaps?), than with Democrats who seemed to want to replay the glory days of busting up Standard Oil and Ma Bell.

On the other hand, it's probably not too late for them to buy their way in to the hearts and minds of the current Democrat regime.

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[jbolden]

You are saying during Bush-41 (pre Clinton) you think they were Republican?

Re:Microsoft Bailout???

[Golias]

No, I'm saying they were largely out of the game until the anti-trust actions heated up during the 90s.

features myth

[brre]

Why does Microsoft, and apparently Apple, believe what we've been waiting for is more features? I don't know a single consumer who is dissatisfied with their box because it lacks this or that feature. The consumers I know who are unhappy are unhappy with the user experience: box does something unexpected, unexplained, mysterious, unintended, or just plain wrong. So I don't understand the features war. I would think the vast majority of us aren't looking for the box to do something new and wonderful, but to stop doing things that are weird and obstructive.

Re:features myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple users tend to find their OS doesn't do lots of weird or obstructive things, so they upgrade based on lists of fancy new features.

Windows users tend to find their OS does lots of weird or obstructive things, so they're more apt to upgrade to a version that does less of them.

Re:features myth

[Timtimes]

Some truth in there, but I believe that, from my perspective of having switched from 98 to OS/X a couple years ago, the major 'feature' is not having to piss with the O/S every other week or reboot the machine three times a day. Another feature is being able to look at my friends, who see me as a computer geek, and honestly say: "I wish I could help you with your, old, buggy, slow, POS, FITB Windows problem, but it's been years since I messed with them and I really don't have a clue......and without your original install CD.....sorry." Another evening saved from the tedium of birthing yet another complete Windows rebuild. Priceless. Enjoy.

Re:features myth

[silanea]

Second that, and add the wish for more performant operation to that. I didn't buy that quad-core and those 4 gigs of RAM so that the OS developers can waste those resources, I bought them so that my applications run faster and perform better. As far as I'm concerned, an OS should be designed and coded so efficiently that it runs equally performant on an Eee PC and a 2x4-Core Mac Pro. Any surplus resources should be reserved for apps. Now that would be an innovation I'd happily pay good money for.

Re:features myth

[operagost]

Some truth in there, but I believe that, from my perspective of having switched from 98 to OS/X a couple years ago, the major 'feature' is not having to piss with the O/S every other week or reboot the machine three times a day.

You do realize that Windows 98 is a totally different animal from the NT-kernel line, right? I could compare Windows XP to Mac OS 9 and Mac OS wouldn't look too good.

Re:features myth

[UnknowingFool]

More features are a selling point. I guess the difference between Leopard and Vista is that Apple spent 6 years and multiple releases prior to get the stability and functionality mostly right then concentrated on adding features like Time Machine. With Vista, MS tried to everything in one step. It hasn't worked out as well as they hoped.

Re:features myth

[ceoyoyo]

A lot of the features are designed to help with that. For example: Spotlight: find stuff easier; Time Machine: make backing up (and restoring) simple, easy, and automatic; network shares and bonjour/zeroconf integrated more tightly into the GUI so grabbing stuff off your other computers is easy for a novice to do.

Some of the other stuff is required to support those applications: new file systems to store the metadata necessary for decent searching, for example.

Re:features myth

[Space cowboy]

I believe that's the purpose behind 'Snow Leopard'... Apple have taken a time-out to work on the underpinnings of the OS, and tune-up the performance.

The two things I'm most looking forward to are OpenCL (a standard way to access any GPU from user-code, AFAICT) and Grand Central (a way to easily harness multiple CPU's in a standardised way. Between the two of those, I can see Apple leaping ahead in performance over "normal" PC's...

From my perspective, I see it as Apple sweating the details, so I don't have to. They have a history of doing that, and I for one appreciate it.

Simon.

Re:features myth

[Golias]

Why does Microsoft, and apparently Apple, believe what we've been waiting for is more features?

I don't know a single consumer who is dissatisfied with their box because it lacks this or that feature.

The consumers I know who are unhappy are unhappy with the user experience: box does something unexpected, unexplained, mysterious, unintended, or just plain wrong.

So I don't understand the features war. I would think the vast majority of us aren't looking for the box to do something new and wonderful, but to stop doing things that are weird and obstructive.

Apple has seen, for a long time, that their future lies in devices like the iPod, iPhone, and perhaps even the AppleTV.

Most of their added features (in particular their iLife suite) have been all about making the home computer more of a base-station-like "hub" for all your other gizmos (which you will hopefully buy from them.)

Most of Microsoft's added features were added for the same reason Microsoft always adds features:

1. Mimicking Apple's new ideas, but doing it cheaper to chop them off at the knees
2. Planned obsolescence, to push OEM sales and software upgrades

Re:features myth

[smellsofbikes]

>Why does Microsoft, and apparently Apple, believe what we've been waiting for is more features?

1. If you don't fully understand the technology used, you revert to using a features list as your quality metric. More features for your money equals better perceived value, even if most of those features are stupid or immaterial.

2. It's much easier to add new features than to fix deep underlying problems. It's also easier to sell something "now, with iFooBar software included!" than "now, with less locking-up, blue-screens, and disturbing grinding sounds!"

Re:features myth

[lelitsch]

Well, I am waiting for some consumer features, and I don't see many things OS X does wrong--or XP for that matter. Obviously Office 2007 is a different story, because it took a few big steps back in usability.

OK, here are some wishes:

-right click on any text in any application for Google search. (on OS X, you can drag to the Safari icon, but that's disruptive)
-Full sized cover flow
-RAW support at the OS level
-Smart text parsing. The OS should know that xxxx@yyyy.zzz is an email. Mail does something like this, but I don't use it for other reasons.
-Real transparent server file systems. No, XP/Vista/OS X/Linux do not have this.
-And specifically for the Mac, although this can be considered user experience: Someone please let me lock the wireless to a network instead of scanning all 55 open networks in my building every single time it gets out of standby.

And there are features like Time Machine that I didn't know I needed until I started using them.

Re:features myth

[acidrainx]

and apparently Apple

Except that Apple is not working on adding new features. OS X 10.6 (a.k.a. Snow Leopard) is going to be a performance upgrade. Features aren't the focus of the release.

Re:features myth

[Anubis IV]

Apple's decision for their next OS, Snow Leopard, would indicate that you've incorrectly identified their beliefs. After all, the whole point of the next OS is to not bother with new features aimed at the end user and instead to focus on refining what they already have. Sounds like they're already doing just what you suggest that they should be doing.

Re:features myth

[Damek]

You have a point, except "box does something unexpected, unexplained, mysterious, unintended, wrong" ignores that everyone is different and what one user may expect, intend, or think is right, another may not expect, not intend, or think is wrong. I'm not talking about just strange error messages. I'm talking about things like ... RSS readers.

Why are there so many different kinds? Why is RSS ability a feature in major web browsers? Why not just focus on browsing and bugfixing and not add features like this?

Because some users *expect* the browser to be the one stop shop for everything. Some users *intend* to use such a feature if available, while others prefer the box do things separately for them. Etc.

So for some, features are just "more features," but for others, a given feature may be doing exactly what you want: stops the computer doing something obstructive (i.e., not working the way the user would prefer) by enabling a capability they were previously obstructed from enjoying.

Many "features" are exactly that: fixing problems for the user, insofar as everything that a user may want to do that the computer can't do is a problem.

Re:features myth

[snStarter]

Well if you look at the next version of OS X you'll see a lot fewer "features" at the user end and a lot more work being done down in the bowels of the OS. So it appears Apple is actually doing what you want.

Re:features myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are a few very vocal people out there who will write long, hateful reviews essentially saying that "this lacks feature XYZ, therefore it is useless and shouldn't be used by anyone". And people will believe it (some people will believe everything they read), and that gives them power.

Re:features myth

[stewbacca]

I don't know a single consumer who is dissatisfied with their box because it lacks this or that feature.

That's because ignorance is bliss. You don't know what you are missing if you don't have it. This is the origin of most Mac Fanboyism (I myself am guilty from time-to-time). It's also the premise of the "Get a Mac" campaign. Get a Mac so you can find out what you are missing.

Re:features myth

[stewbacca]

Someone please let me lock the wireless to a network instead of scanning all 55 open networks in my building every single time it gets out of standby.

You can set up your list of wireless access points to only include ones you want to show up. It may take you a while to get rid of the 54 you don't want, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. I had about 10 in my list and I got rid of 9 of them. My MacBook spends zero time scanning for other networks.

Re:features myth

[jbolden]

I know tons:

1) Doesn't do video encoding well enough
2) Doesn't have drag and drop for video/audio files that works
3) Exports don't support video and audio effectively.
4) Doesn't connect directly with home DVRs

etc...

Re:features myth

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds as if you are not aware tha the next version of Mac OS X, 10.6 Snow Leopard, is supposed to be an anti-features release. All the reports say that the focus is performance and optimization for multi-core CPUs, current hardware, GPUs. etc. with few new bullet-point features.

On the surface it seems to be what so many geeks ask for: Streamlining without unbridled feature bloat. If it turns out to actually be a leaner, faster OS when it comes out, anyone who posts that they might not buy it "because it doesn't seem to have any cool features" will forfeit their right to post complaints about OS feature bloat. Should be an interesting test.

Re:features myth

[ThousandStars]

Why does Microsoft, and apparently Apple, believe what we've been waiting for is more features?

Because consumers pay for features, and if you have nothing to sell, you'll eventually not be a company anymore. Regarding consumers and features, see Joel Spolsky's Strategy Letter IV: Bloatware and the 80/20 Myth.

Re:features myth

[silanea]

Interesting indeed. Now if only Linux picked that up... (No offense to Mac users; I just don't like OS X.) But in the course of the boot-in-x-seconds rage that is going on right now a lot of stuff is being reworked and slimmed down. At least it's a start. It seems to me only Microsoft somehow does not show much involvement in this field.

Re:features myth

[leomekenkamp]

Quote from that article:

This is a program that goes through your Windows registry looking for things that aren't being used and deleting them. You have to be a little bit on the obsessive-compulsive side to care about cleaning up unused parts of your registry. So I'm starting to suspect that fretting about bloatware is more of a mental health problem than a software problem.

I hope it is needless to say I did not read on beyond this point.

Old opinion

[CountBrass]

The ninties called and they want their thinking back.

Ballmer!

[Hal_Porter]

I will kill this Mossberg for you for ten million of your American dollars and a lifetime license for Windows XP.

Re:Ballmer!

[Anonymous Coward]

I will kill this Mossberg for you for ten million of your American dollars and a lifetime license for Windows XP.

That's like, what, 5 euros?

Broken ad campaign

[hellfire]

In the case of Vista, enterprises have stayed away in droves.

Which is a point I've been making for months to pro Vista people who don't understand why this is such a disaster and keep claiming "Vista isn't that bad." What they don't understand is that for the business market, Vista is extraordinarily bad!! That's extraordinarily bad for Microsoft, and which is their main source of income. Business are still buying XP licenses for new machines, but they aren't upgrading current machines to Vista because it's an admin nightmare and companies have lost complete trust in Vista.

Microsoft has then been trying to fix the problem by putting out odd consumer ads? The problem isn't primarily with consumers, which is why their ad campaign is broken, too.

Re:Broken ad campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, the "common wisdom" about Vista's "failure" among enterprise customers is wrong. If you actually look at the numbers, Vista's business adoption rate, although extremely slow in 2007, has picked up in 2008 enough to be on par with XP when it was 2 years old. Also, according to a number of surveys looking into businesses that are planning Vista deployments, 2009 is looking to be a better year for Vista in the enterprise than what XP had in its third year.

Re:Broken ad campaign

[drsmithy]

Which is a point I've been making for months to pro Vista people who don't understand why this is such a disaster and keep claiming "Vista isn't that bad." What they don't understand is that for the business market, Vista is extraordinarily bad!! That's extraordinarily bad for Microsoft, and which is their main source of income. Business are still buying XP licenses for new machines, but they aren't upgrading current machines to Vista because it's an admin nightmare and companies have lost complete trust in Vista.

Uh, no, they are upgrading to Vista for the same reason they didn't start upgrading to XP until 2005 or so.

If businesses haven't starting upgrading to Vista by the 2010-2011 timeframe, you might be able to start credibly saying they really don't want it.

Re:Broken ad campaign

[lennier]

"The thing is, the "common wisdom" about Vista's "failure" among enterprise customers is wrong. "

Not where I work.

We'll move to Vista when we're forced to and not a moment before.

Mind you since Microsoft can effectively wave the licence wand any time and say 'right, no new XP licences for new hardware', and hardware is refreshed on a three-year lease cycle, that'll still happen.

The sales figures might reflect product moving, but it doesn't mean we're *choosing* it, but that it's being forced down our throats.

Enough already!

[nobodyman]

Look, I know this is Slashdot and all, but honestly I'm starting to get microsoft-vista-embarassing-email-story fatigue. Ever since the Vista class-action exposed all of these internal Microsoft emails, people have been cherry-picking emails and making them into full-blown stories for months it seems.

I'm no Microsoft apologist, it's just that it's starting to get old. Yes, we know Vista sucks. We know Microsoft felt the same way. We get it!! Please stop beating us over the head with it already.

Re:Enough already!

[iamapizza]

I agree with you; if we were to somehow get a hold of internal memos in the Apple corporation, we'd probably be seeing equally 'truthful' or 'embarrassing' statements (but not on slashdot, since it seems like we are so keen on puckering up to Apple's proverbial posterior these days).

"Just make the machines shinier, those idiots will think it's a more powerful and configurable machine"

"Let's tell them it's Unix-like, they'll think it IS Unix!"

"Those ads were a great idea, even I can't find flaws with them!"

But if we did, I'm guessing that we'd suddenly have a host of Applogizers (get it? Apple+apologizers? Ha ha, my wit just cut my jugular) lining up to explain why those statements aren't really true or valid.

Please, corporations work like this, just stop already. Find something better to publish, like a Monty Python video.

Re:Enough already!

[barzok]

"Let's tell them it's Unix-like, they'll think it IS Unix!"

As of Leopard, OS X is certified UNIX.

Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications for the C API, Shell Utilities, and Threads. Since Leopard can compile and run all your existing UNIX code, you can deploy it in environments that demand full conformance -- complete with hooks to maintain compatibility with existing software.

Previous versions had full or nearly full UNIX underpinnings, it just didn't meet certification requirements.

Re:Enough already!

[barzok]

WTF? My link disappeared. http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html

Re:Enough already!

[Anonymous Coward]

it's just that it's starting to get old. Yes, we know Vista sucks. We know Microsoft felt the same way. We get it!! Please stop beating us over the head with it already.

Except that Vista keeps getting thrown back into our faces. Try buying a new PC, and you're stuck with Vista, starting with what is probably Vista's number one insult to the consumer: 4+ versions to choose from, each with a more outrageous price-tag.

The new ads aside (I think they're just a PR move for investors rather than consumers), Microsoft's strategy is to run out the clock. XP is no longer officially available to PC makers, and PC makers don't really offer any alternative. So, with each new PC, the vast majority of computer users will be just "getting used to" Vista.

Such a poor product does not deserve to eventually win dominant market share of world-wide PC operating systems (imagine Mac sales if OS X had been this bad). This sucks, and continues to suck, and that's why it's still news.

Re:Enough already!

[iamapizza]

"Let's tell them it's Unix-like, they'll think it IS Unix!"

As of Leopard, OS X is certified UNIX.

Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications for the C API, Shell Utilities, and Threads. Since Leopard can compile and run all your existing UNIX code, you can deploy it in environments that demand full conformance -- complete with hooks to maintain compatibility with existing software.

Previous versions had full or nearly full UNIX underpinnings, it just didn't meet certification requirements.

See?!

Re:Enough already!

[nobodyman]

Nice. I'd have modded your previous insightful if I could.

Re:Enough already!

[syousef]

I'm no Microsoft apologist, it's just that it's starting to get old. Yes, we know Vista sucks. We know Microsoft felt the same way. We get it!! Please stop beating us over the head with it already.

No MS apologist huh? Have you sent MS a letter complaining about their multi million dollar advertising campaigns using has been stars like Seinfeld? If they're going to spend big making their product sound rosy, why are a few stories on slashdot annoying you, yet their advertising isn't?

Re:Enough already!

[nobodyman]

Did you even read my post? You know, the one where I mentioned that Vista sucks?

Have you sent MS a letter complaining about their multi million dollar advertising campaigns using has been stars like Seinfeld?

Wow, you got me. I don't send Microsoft letters telling them how much I hate them, so I am therefore a fanboy. I was planning on sharing that I run windows, macosx, and ubuntu at home but now that I see what a simplistic world you live in I'm afraid it might short-circuit your brain.

Re:Enough already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the market decide when this story is getting old. The longevity of this story is an indication of the monumental fuck-up that is Vista.

You haven't seen some viruses

[Moraelin]

You haven't seen some viruses. I seem to remember, back in the dark ages of floppies, long before the internet, when 1.44 MB was all the space on a floppy and viruses were supposed to go unnoticed on one so they could spread, someone had written a 100K virus in Clipper. Or one of the similar DBase2-like databases. In an age of 512 _byte_ viruses, or where even complex and sophisticated ones were measured in single digit kilobytes, that was fucking huge. It's akin to having a 100 MB virus nowadays. In fact, it's akin to nowadays writing a virus in Java and distributing it together with a JDK.

So in all fairness, you can't generalize like that. Just because Vista is the most extreme case of a bloated and inefficient virus, doesn't mean there weren't other viruses that were only slightly less bloated and inefficient before ;)

Re:You haven't seen some viruses

[Ucklak]

Viruses were being spread before the Dark Ages, in the time when floppies were floppy and carried 370k of data.

Re:You haven't seen some viruses

[TheThiefMaster]

I personally think the most impressive virus was CIH, which could be considered to be zero bytes in size, due to the fact that it didn't increase the size of executables it infected. It didn't damage them either, it filled alignment gaps in the PE (.exe) file format, making the infected exe "denser" than the uninfected one. Pretty clever.

Re:You haven't seen some viruses

[Tony Hoyle]

360k.

370k required hacks (you could push it to 400 on some disks).

Re:You haven't seen some viruses

[Moraelin]

If we're at willy-waving about who's seen lesser capacity floppies, that 360k floppy looks positively huge compared to an 8" single-side single-density floppy, and I've seen an ancient mainframe that used 70-something MB 8" floppies as late as 1999.

But I figure that's irrelevant, because I was talking about the age when that 100K virus appeared.

Re:You haven't seen some viruses

[mattack2]

I had a virus on 143K floppies.. so there..

Re:You haven't seen some viruses

[symbolset]

Before executable compression became the norm a few viruses, some quite large, compressed the infected executable and made it smaller even with the viral payload.

By your metric those viruses would have negative size. Excessive compression was abandoned and subsequent versions compressed just enough or padded to hit the original filesize because file size change was a detection heuristic. There were a few that could do this and pad data bytes to hit a checksum value based on checksum algorithms used by common AV programs. This was a long time ago though. File size change is still a metric, but AV checksums have become more sophisticated.

The smallest virus I've seen reported was trivialow.13, at 13 bytes. I don't have a sample, though.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[0100010001010011]

mplayer -ontop -cache 102400 $drag and drop video here from NFS share$

Only way to watch videos in bed/couch. Never have to worry about Firefox or what ever being in front of the video. Caches enough to watch the movie without hiccups.

Although aalib gives new meaning to ASCII Porn.

MOD Parent UP

[PRMan]

I couldn't have said it better myself. We just want the 30-second lockups, hard disk thrashing and other unexplained delays to go away and let us do our work. Unfortunately, Vista exacerbates all those problems instead of fixing them.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might as well sell your sole to Richard Stall..erm Satan!!/p>

Why would Satan, or Stallman for that matter, do with one of his shoes??

Yes, WE can: The New Mac commercial

[starglider29a]

Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac
Bill Gates: And I'm a PC
Mac: WHOA, Bill Gates! What are you doing on a Mac commercial?
Bill: To remind people that Microsoft is more than Windows. We've been writing software for the Mac since before there was a Mac. The same Office suite that PC's use is available to Mac Users
Mac: Actually, Bill, it's better.
Bill: [blushes] Thanks. And with Boot Camp and virtualization, you can run Windows if you have to.
Mac: Or want to. I think Vista ROCKS on a Mac.
Bill: That's all. Microsoft makes software and operating systems... for PCs AND Macs.
Mac: So, we can work together.
Bill: Yes. Yes, we can. [shakes hands] Nice shoes...[Exit, Stage right]
[Mac stands stunned]
[Enter PC, eating a churro]
PC: You're not going to believe this. I just met Jerry Seinfeld in the hallway.
[Mac stands stunned]
PC: What? What'd I miss?
[Fade to iMac running Office 2008 and Parallels with Vista] and new 'Yes, WE can' logo

Re:Yes, WE can: The New Mac commercial

[nilbog]

Sorry, I agree with the troll. That was probably the worst get a mac ad I've ever seen.

Re:Yes, WE can: The New Mac commercial

[Doctor O]

I actually LOLed, but Microsoft launching such an ad would be pure genius. Why? Microsoft isn't interested in selling PC's, it's a software company. It couldn't care less if its software is run on a Mac or a PC. Apple, OTOH, wouldn't have much to counter such a strategy.

Not Fear

[cbreaker]

Microsoft doesn't have much to fear from Apple and won't for still some time even if Apple keeps slowly increasing their market share.

What you see here is an interest in the competition, a dialog to consider improving your own product in response to a competitor.

Sounds like the market actually working, but it's not fear.

Re:Not Fear

[Quiet_Desperation]

What you see here is an interest in the competition, a dialog to consider improving your own product in response to a competitor.

That theory might hold more sway of Microsoft actually improved anything.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[hggs]

Or you could try this little tidbit if you are truly a CLI Junkie...

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[jo_ham]

MAC = Media Access Control

Mac = Short for Apple Macintosh.

My friend, I fear that the computer you chose to use will have no bearing on what people already think of your intelligence.

Just FUD and bullshit...

[Anonymous Coward]

From someone who has never used Vista. I've had it installed for years, it's every bit as stable as XP, and while it's clearly somewhat more "expensive" (CPU+Memory), on any kind of modern hardware it is irrelevant.

It's also clearly more secure than XP. In all cases where I've installed it for friends and family, it has noticeably reduced the amount of cruft that gets installed.

Re:Just FUD and bullshit...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had it installed for years, it's every bit as stable as XP...

More anecdotal evidence, pointing the other way. I've been using a laptop, a Sony Vaio, for about six months. It's powerful enough to run Vista quite smoothly, but it randomly loses its wireless connection about once per 24 hours, and spontaneously reboots about once per week. Driver issues, probably, so they're not strictly Microsoft's fault - but from a user experience perspective, it doesn't really matter.

It's also got an annoying habit of failing to transfer a file the first time I drag-and-drop it. It usually works only on the second attempt. I never had any problems like this on XP.

I haven't had any problems...

[steveaustin1971]

I waited awhile to even try Vista because of all the talk, but I got a copy of Home Premium and dual booted it just to check it out, and I haven't had any problems... Its running well, even Aero (2x G280 SLI) and I use it to game all the time. I would agree that XP can run faster but a little, but honestly only like 5-10% with the video cards my desktop runs without using up CPU cycles, and when I jump into a direct X game it turns itself off until I return to the desktop. I have had no crashes, no blue screens, and no issues running all my software. So I just don't get it? Do you people not configure your windows for performance on your systems? Do you just install it and leave it? Maybe I'm just some kind of fluke, but I guess we'll see as I just put it on the rest of the gaming PC's in this house (one more SLI system and one ATI pos) but the kids seem to like it so far... as far as replacing it with a Mac, uh a Mac can't do what I need it to do.

Re:I haven't had any problems...

[aaron.axvig]

Most of them are just observing from afar and have no real-world experience. Maybe they ran it long enough to see UAC and get pissed a couple times at all the annoying first-time welcome pop-ups. Having used Vista on both of my computers for 3 years now (ever since RC1) I can without question say that this is a reliable OS which I would have no problem recommending to anyone: grandparents, parents, friends, IT co-workers, power plant monitoring systems (OK just kidding about that one).

Re:I haven't had any problems...

[Ant P.]

uh a Mac can't do what I need it to do.

A Mac can't dual boot with XP? When did they take that feature away?

Re:I haven't had any problems...

[steveaustin1971]

oh you can dual boot XP, but you cannot run my newer games, and does not support SLI, or my physics card.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[andrikos]

Gahh!!! If you follow the downward spiral even more you might end up watching those movies you downloaded with rtorrent with mplayer via aalib!!!

Why not use the framebuffer output of mplayer for a real CLI experience? ;-)

Walt Mossburg...

[FranTaylor]

Has been an obsession for Microsoft for decades.

I think Bill Gates has 20 years of Walt Mossburg's columns memorized and can recite any of them verbatim on demand.

Certainly he is a capable tech writer but I don't understand the obsession.

Re:Walt Mossburg...

[micromuncher]

Because even zealots need to idolize someone. There is a perception that Mossberg is somehow influential (ah, maybe its that WSJ thing.)

Walt Mossberg

[Anonymous Coward]

The really scary thing is that someone listened to something Walt Mossberg said.

MS could take a lesson from Apple

[DJRumpy]

Apple ditched all of the legacy crap. It was somewhat painful, but it's not like peoples old OS's simply stopped working. When they were ready, they upgraded and left the legacy world behind. MS has far more baggage that they need to lose. I think a lot of the 'bloat' associated with MS OS's would go away if they just started with a clean slate. With the popularity of VM's these days, they could easily integrate old app OS support into a shiny new OS using VM's without trying to maintain compatibility. They have simply become old school, and now they will never graduate on their current path...

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[mweather]

The clit is fun to play with.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[argiedot]

Well, Satan _is_ a bit of a heel. So he deserves it.

Subsets people...

[Anonymous Coward]

He said it correctly - you're correct that in 2001 OS X became available. OS X becoming available in 2k1 is a subset of "In 2005, Mac OS X was available."

Additionally - Sure Mac announced Intel procs in 2k5, (actual launch was 2k6) which again is a subset of "by 2008, Mac had adopted Intel x86-based processors"

I think the point is the threat wasn't at critical mass until later on in their adaptation.

Microsoft could do this, but probably won't...

[argent]

There's certainly a lot of interest in that. There was so much talk out there about the possibility that Windows 7 was going to be this kind of "New Windows" with legacy software running in a thin emulation environment that it became conventional wisdom at one point. They could do this... a lot more easily than Apple did... because the Windows application model is not tightly coupled to the API exposed through it... for example, the Pocket PC test environment in the Pocket PC SDK is just a Windows application with a different set of DLLs available to it. Whether they will or not is a different matter, but it's something they certainly could do.

Part of the reason I don't see them going that way is that currently the complexity of the Windows API is where their application barrier to entry lives. Given a simpler and cleaner API it would be SO much easier for projects like Wine to emulate it on top of UNIX-based systems.

You know what it is, my peeps

[Quiet_Desperation]

It's fear of a Mac planet.

Thus, Snow Leopard

[SuperKendall]

Why does Microsoft, and apparently Apple, believe what we've been waiting for is more features?

The next OS release for Apple is Snow Leopard which instead of offering user facing features is working on improved programming API's, better stability and performance.

I'm not saying they never chase the shiny ring of featureitis, but at least in this instance Apple is taking the wise path of refining what they have, even if not everyone upgrades due to the lack of new features it's still a great boon for new computer buyers.

In reality I think Windows 7 is party taking the same approach by refining Vista, but they cannot seem to help add new shiny features to try and lure users.

Does not apply

[SuperKendall]

The old saying still applies as it does in the Mac world. If your system is more than 1 or 2 years old consider purchasing a new system or build a new one yourself and do the research.

Sorry, but that does NOT apply in the Mac world in the same way. Leopard runs just fine on systems several years old, not just two, and in fact improves performance on the older systems as well - just like every release of OS X before it...

You seem to have confused an OS that makes you FEEL like you have new hardware for one that REQUIRES new hardware.

EndUSER

[Anonymous Coward]

I been using PC's since "Run Time Windows" in DOS. I Have owned Mac, not going to do that a again! In simple terms you have to sale your soul to Apple. I'm not going to do that again, the price is just too high. I'm still on XP Pro, but the new PC will be Vista 64/Linux 64. I need to do this since I will be using 8-16 gigs of ddr. Apple just costs more and gives you less at the same time telling you it the shape of things to come. Example trying to kill off FireWire and not using Memory Card Readers in their Crapples. What we need is a Simple Small Secure OS that will stay out of the Users way.

Re:EndUSER

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD file system and other - LGPL
Mach kernel - stopped all development in 1994 -
A win 3.1 like display manger over it.
Runs on intel -- this is all mac about.

Taking free open source stuff and putting display manager cloth over it and selling it only for APPLE logoed computers and only certain other devices.

If it runs all the drivers you run on windows, u may call it "yellow snow".

And it works only on Intel made chips with a apple logo on it - Pure monopoly and got some clowns to say "MAC MAC MAC" ( sounds like duck sound ?? )

Windows made people this much aware of computers and common use, can use any hardware so more people can do business and lot applications.

Good so !

[zimtmaxl]

That's a sign of healthy instincts. A company that stops fearing competition is doomed!

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[grub]

Only way to watch videos in bed/couch.

Judging by that comment and your nick, I'll wager you don't have a girlfriend. :)

Not quite

[Quila]

The old saying still applies as it does in the Mac world. If your system is more than 1 or 2 years old consider purchasing a new system

I bought a Mac with Tiger last year. I upgraded to Leopard and found it ran faster. Snow Leopard is due out next year and it appears that my current hardware will probably run even faster on it. Why should I buy new hardware with the OS helping my current hardware last longer? This has been the case for a while, although the PPC-Intel switch will probably leave some people with PPC Macs needing to upgrade their hardware after a few years to be able to run the latest Mac OS.

Contrast with Windows, where OS upgrades always put more strain on the hardware, which brings in your 1-2 year rule.

Still true, no moderation changes that

[GuloGulo]

I love that flambait moderation, one of you fanboys must have really been hurt by the truth.

Missing the point...

[wmduncan]

What's particularly telling here is not that they were "scared" - they weren't. They thought that this was a simple failure of marketing. It never occurred to them that Apple might have introduced something that might actually have some advantages over their next generation system. It was inconceivable to them. That is not a failure of marketing - it's a failure to understand the market and your competition. It is a failure of management - and a failure at the highest levels of the most profitable software company in the world.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Muad'Dave]

You might as well sell your sole to Richard Stall..erm Satan!!

Or for that matter, What would Satan or Stallman do with his flatfish?

Got that backwards

[CarpetShark]

OS X has a simple metaphor that exposes the underlying principles of computers in a way that average people can understand -- apps are files you drag from an archive to an HD to install for instance. That's the exact opposite of dumbing things down; it's making things clear. Windows, by contrast, hides the issues -- having programs you download actually be installers that download more files and install them to a non-obvious place, for instance. THIS is dumbing-down -- it leads to users that don't understand what they've just done, never mind how to solve problems. And don't get me started on how illogical having a "file" menu with an exit option is in a PC browser, or an anti-virus program. Macs make that app vs. file distinction much more sensible too.

Re:Got that backwards

[geobeck]

Windows, by contrast, hides the issues -- having programs you download actually be installers that download more files and install them to a non-obvious place, for instance.

Perhaps the example that causes the most confusion is the missing Word document. When you save a document attached to an e-mail on a Mac, by default it saves to /username/Documents, which is a single click to get to in Finder. Compare that to C:\Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD3.

Disclaimer: For all I know, Vista has removed this ridiculous obfuscation. Having not used Vista, at home or at work, I don't know and don't really care. :D

Re:Got that backwards

[Hucko]

I believe that Vista downloads to \Downloads. Its true path is still c:\Documents and Settings\\Documents\Download, but it is now only one click. Hallelujah! ...cept I run linux which is just dumps it to the user directory.

Re:Got that backwards

[jonbryce]

It's c:\users\jonathan\downloads - substitute jonathan for whatever your username is obviously.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[CarpetShark]

MAC = Macintosh, Mandatory Access Control, Mandatory Access Control, Message Authentication Code, ad infinitum (almost)

Most things only have meaning in their context. "MAC" is one of the worst cases.

Artists and engineers?

[jonaskoelker]

But then maybe that is the problem with Microsoft management, that it is full of shrewd corporate ladder-climbing types instead of inspired artists and engineers.

It's a problem when people are more concerned about getting the higher-up job than about doing their own job, 100% agreed.

But management positions should be held by managers, not artists or engineers. They should be familiar with the process they're managing (so ex-artists and -engineers are a good idea), but they should also have a good set of management skills. Learning only from your experiences is probably not the best way to go.

Having someone teach you insights of the past, what to think about and how to think usefully about it (i.e. a formal education) is probably a good start, and in my book, if you get a management position, that makes you a manager and an ex-whatever.

[maybe that's what you meant...]

I am a PI . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Pathetic Ignoramus that is. Seriously, I just want to know what PI stands for. Anyone?

Re:I am a PI . . .

[lymond01]

PI = Principal Investigator...generally a faculty member at a research university in charge of a research group consisting of graduate students and possibly academic or staff researchers (postdocs, researchers, etc).

Re:features myth myths

[betterunixthanunix]

"-Smart text parsing. The OS should know that xxxx@yyyy.zzz is an email. Mail does something like this, but I don't use it for other reasons."

Please, let us not have this added to anything. That is the format used for Jabber screennames, ssh/sftp logins, finger, and a variety of other network services new and old.

"-Real transparent server file systems. No, XP/Vista/OS X/Linux do not have this."

Wait, let me check...yes, Dolphin from KDE4, and Konqueror in KDE3, and the file dialog in KDE, and so forth all supported ftp/sftp/webdav browsing, saving, editing, and so on. I fail to see how we can get more transparent than that, short of the computer learning to read minds.

Even worse, Macs can run XP

[jc42]

'You won't have to worry about Vista if you buy one of Apple Computer's Macintosh computers, which don't run Windows,' Mossberg had written.

When my wife was asked to do half her work from home (and be much more productive that commuting to the office, it turns out), she had to look into replacing her ancient (4 years old ;-) Windows box. It was running XP, and her office hasn't upgraded to Vista, so she was looking for a PC to run XP. She couldn't buy one, until she asked at an Apple store. They explained to her that she could indeed run XP on a Mac. She got an iMac, installed XP via Fusion, and it works fine. Now a number of other people at work want her to teach them how to do it.

This has gotta be one of the things that terrifies MS's management. They lost a customer to Apple because the customer couldn't use Vista (for work-related reasons), and a competitor's system can run a virtualized XP subsystem. You could probably do the same with Linux.

Back in the 1970s, when the VM OS was taking over the IBM mainframe world, IBM responded by adopting VM and supporting it. This radically improved the usefulness of IBM's mainframes to their customers, and helped them consolidate their stranglehold on the mainframe market. So far, MS has viewed virtualization as a threat to their business, and has tried to block it. Maybe we shouldn't tell them that they're making a huge mistake. If they keep fighting it, they'll never be able to duplicate the total takeover that IBM managed in the mainframe arena. Virtualization is just too useful to a large percent of the users. And if we can avoid that sort of monoculture in the desktop, laptop, etc parts of the industry, we'll have a much healthier industry that will continue to innovate.

So let's all encourage MS to continue to try to block this development. It's for the benefit of everyone (except for MS's main stockholders).

Re:Even worse, Macs can run XP

[Anonymous Coward]

What evidence do you have that Microsoft is fighting virtualization? They seem to be embracing it. They have their own virtualization products, both high-level emulation and low-lever hypervisors, as well as cross-product virtualization management support. With the exception of the licensing restrictions for Windows Vista Home, which have since been removed, all versions of Windows are expressedly permitted to run within virtualization.

You have it backwards. The company that is openly fighting virtualization is Apple. You are expressedly forbidden from running MacOSX within a virtual machine on any hardware, even a Mac.

If you license Windows XP or Vista to load it onto a Mac, even in virtualization, then Microsoft gets their due. Even better, it is likely a retail license which has a higher margin. Microsoft is not losing anything to this crowd of people.

So, what evidence do you have to support your claim that Microsoft is fighting virtualization? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass? My guess is #2 since the facts contradict you.

Re:Even worse, Macs can run XP

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why that's such a terrible thing for Microsoft at this stage. It's a software company and, while I'm sure they'd rather not have people buying Macs, it doesn't really hurt them much. Windows on a Mac is still Windows. Unless they're doing it wrong, Microsoft should still be getting money for it.

When commercial software and games for Macs catch up with Windows, then Microsoft might have a problem...

Re:Even worse, Macs can run XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they haven't really lost a customer, assuming your wife used a legit copy of XP.

Re:Even worse, Macs can run XP

[jc42]

You could be right, but I don't really know. She got XP from her employer's IT people, and validated it using the same VPN that she uses to work on it. So to XP's licensing stuff, her machine looks like it's on her office network. Presumably the company has a valid site license, though I have read stories about companies finding ways to install more instances than they've paid for. But I don't know if we could even validate that.

The idea that MS is a software company and thus shouldn't care what hardware you're using seems reasonable. But it doesn't seem to agree with all the stories about their attempts at strict controls. We've read a number of stories about MS's attempts to prevent running Windows and linux on the same machine. There have been similar stories recently about Apple, though our experience with XP on the iMac seems to show that at least our local Apple Store people openly support such things.

I even had a personal case some years back, when I had a new machine on which came with Windows, and I installed linux in a different partition. One day I needed to run something on Windows, so I booted it. When I shut it down and tried to boot linux, it wouldn't boot. Investigations showed that the linux partition was no longer marked as bootable. I took the radical approach of studying the docs, including the licenses, and I found the paragraph that explicitly stated that running Windows gave it permission to modify any disk partition. In another paragraph, the license actually said that Windows would "help" users by making non-Windows partitions unbootable. After figuring out how to make linux bootable again and verifying that it seemed undamaged otherwise, I wiped the Windows partition and reformatted it as ext2.

In any case, even if MS isn't selling the hardware, they do seem to sometimes take steps to sabotage competitors' software, especially competing OSs, that are on the same hardware. The above story isn't nearly the only one I've seen. And it wasn't the most vicious, since it seems to have only flipped the one bit, and didn't do any apparent damage otherwise. I've seen other cases (e.g. with WMP) where the MS software damaged competing software to the point that reinstallation was necessary. This wasn't on machines that I owned, though, since after the above booting problem, I've never allowed MS software to remain on my own linux machines.

.Net

[dadragon]

This is why I think Microsoft has been pushing .Net so hard for the last few years. Get a decent new API ready for the eventual replacement of the existing system. It'd also make it possible to switch architectures if needed.

Re:.Net

[argent]

I once thought Microsoft might do that, but .NET isn't really a new API, it's a new API *framework*. The same issues apply, and as Mono demonstrates duplicating the framework is not a killer barrier to entry.

To really switch to .NET and keep their barrier to entry they would need to provide a rich API that couldn't be duplicated easily on UNIX, and so far that seems to be mostly duplication of - and bridges to - the existing Win32 APIs.

Also, implementing too much in .NET itself would hurt... you're looking at a performance hit as high as 10:1 and rarely less than 50% overhead. Even absorbing the performance hit of Vista in the past 2 years of CPU improvements has hurt, and that was only 20-40% at worst.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[jo_ham]

Except that Apple *never* uses "MAC" to refer to their machines or software in its literature anywhere. It is always "Mac" or "Apple Mac" or "Apple Macintosh" or sometimes just "Macintosh" but never "MAC".

The only exception would be if it appeared in an all-caps paragraph or something, which the original post clearly is not.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[CarpetShark]

Language is defined by users of the language, not those who don't wish themselves or their products to gain a certain name.

Vista Home Basic

[phorm]

Not to mention that the "basic" version, while still an overpriced POS, lacks even those pretty-graphics capabilities of the more-expensive crap, and lacks what were commonplace capabilities in XP pro/home such as the ability to connect to a password-protected SMB share.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[geobeck]

Language is defined by users of the language, not those who don't wish themselves or their products to gain a certain name.

Only if an organization doesn't actively protect its trademarks from dilution. That's why restaurant servers are required to ask "is Pepsi okay?" if you ask for a Coke in a Pepsi joint. As far as I know, Apple does actively protect its trademarks.

Of course, that doesn't prevent tech support callers from insisting that their computer doesn't have a MAC address because it's a PC.

Irony... look into it.

[PuppeteerJPV]

It's news because people forget. Remember when it was found out that the mailed anthrax came from the US's own gov labs? People have already forgotten that too. People need to be reminded of the monopolistic software prison they live in. They don't have to use Windows, and there is better software out there.

It never ceases to amaze me the complete obliviousness you mac fanboys show when it comes to your favorite monopolistic company.

I can buy any hardware I want, put largely any software I want, any accessories, upgrades, add-ons, etc. There are literally thousands of companies making products for PCs. I can install Linux, I can install Windows, I can install anything I want on a PC. I guess you can use Boot Camp or parallels, but native install?

You're the one who's locked down, there, Sparky.

Re:Irony... look into it.

[x102output]

Not that I'm a Apple fanboy in anyway, but you need to be corrected here:

Boot Camp IS a native install.

Boot Camp is essentially a partition manager that holds your hand and helps you setup your system for a windows install (or another OS). The other part of Boot Camp is a nice and neat driver package with an auto-updater (for windows). You need drivers for windows to work with the hardware (duh, just like ANY pc you buy. You know those DELL driver disks?). Most of their hardware is standard hardware with standard drivers with only a few proprietary things here and there (I believe my macbook pro needs a touchpad driver and that specific one is only in macs).

You can essentially wipe the entire HD clean and run ONLY windows on it (Apple will only push firmware updates through OSX though, obviously). Or you could do all this yourself with a partition tool, and manually go out and find all the windows drivers for your hardware in your MAC.


Remmember, MACs are PCs + EFI chip now. That's it. And they come with OSX pre-installed on them. BootCamp is an automated system of tasks geeks already should know how to do.

Re:Irony... look into it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Boot Camp *is* a native install.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Achromatic1978]

That's why restaurant servers are required to ask "is Pepsi okay?" if you ask for a Coke in a Pepsi joint.

Required? Maybe by their boss who doesn't want to deal with the occasional "I asked for Coke, not Pepsi!", but I can assure you it has nothing to do with trademark law.

ME, XP Vista OH MY

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny to watch the circle jerk that is slashdot when the topic is bash microsoft and universal praise is sung unto linux and apple.

Here is the most important and profoundly impacting aspect of Microsoft that Apple or Linux cannot lay claim to, Microsoft single handedly put computing power into the hands of more of the people in the shortest period of time and in a more meaningful way and at reasonable cost overall and in that, has eclipsed Apples or any others impact to the point where getting the avg person to think about computing is commonplace with some over time making the move beyond MS to Apple or Linux. Oh the irony.

      If it had been up to Apple or Linux you would still be waiting for the wave and would probably working on the auto assembly line in detroit or working in the "service industry".

      So enjoy your cream on MS circle jerk, its just another day throwing stones at the castle walls.

Netbooks

[Krneki]

What M$ should fear are the new netbooks, and the fact that they have to use different OS because Vista is too slow.

Re:No, you're wrong

[V!NCENT]

Sit the fuck down and listen to the reason why the hell we, FLOSS users, hate proprietary software.

If I give you a hard copy of a document then you can read it. But what if I gave you a hard copy of a document with a flashy 3D graph that you cannot see without purchasing $300 glasses? Oh I am sorry, you must buy the $300 dollar glasses because the company patented-, and has hidden, the inner workings of it.

WTF?! We expect you to buy glasses when we can just, what? Provide an freely readable document?

Well hello and welcome to the digital fucking age. Why the hell do people give me digital documents that I can only view with Microsoft Office 200x? Oh wait, I can't...?- No. We made sure you can't possible make something else compatible with it because we lobbied for the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act".

Same goes with games. Do I have to agree to a EULA when I buy a actual Real Life board game of, let's say, chess? No ofcourse not! Ofcourse not? Well if I want a digital game of chess I do... Oh and wait, you cannot take the chess game with you when you move, because you may only take it to three houses (DRM). Oh and wait, you can't possible make you own chess game out of wood because then you are pirating the board game.

"But, but... It's for protecting the Intellectual Property!" Yeah right, so no-one may sell a set of bricks because LEGO already did it, in Real Life? Well I have to in the digital age...

Do you see and understand the fucking reason/necessity for free software now?

Proprietary software restricts our rights in the digital age. Please think of your children who grow up in it!

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[geobeck]

It's got everything to do with trademark law, but indirectly. Coke still tries to protect its trademark from dilution (even though "coke" is pretty much a synonym for "cola" in popular terms). So they won't let Pepsi use the term "coke" in their marketing, obviously. Nor does Pepsi want to. But if Pepsi allowed the people who sell their products to use the term "coke" when selling them, Coke could take legal action to protect their trademark. So Pepsi vendors have to clarify that they're selling Pepsi, not Coke.

Re:No, you're wrong

[GuloGulo]

"Sit the fuck down and listen to the reason why the hell we, FLOSS users, hate proprietary software."

No.

You're losers who identify with a movement because your life is otherwise meaningless.

You're no different than football or nascar fans.

And you deserve as much respect.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Just Some Guy]

That's why restaurant servers are required to ask "is Pepsi okay?" if you ask for a Coke in a Pepsi joint.

I thought it was to avoid complaints from people who ordered a Coke and got a Pepsi instead.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Anonymous Coward]

my god you are an anal twat. who really cares if the person spelt Mac as MAC? Only a nerd that is
an extreme case loser would even care to mention it. Slashdot user number 604554 stop alienating regular normal people. Go outside!

Re:No, you're wrong

[V!NCENT]

No.

You're losers who identify with a movement because your life is otherwise meaningless.

Thank you for already going fast-forward to the part where I, and the 99,99% of /., can only laugh at you because there are no arguments left on your side of this conversation

Insufferable "I'm a PC" ads on the BART

[merc]

I wonder if I'm the only one who's sick of seeing the "I'm a PC" ads on the BART stations here in SF?

It wouldn't be so bad if there were just a few posters or ads here and there, but at some of the stations (e.g., Montgomery) it seems Microsoft took a scorched earth approach with their advertising budget and went totally nuts plastering them at about every conceivable square inch eyeballs could possibly scan on the concourse level.

I am tempted to invest in a handful of Linux/TUX stickers and plaster them over the ads but I don't want to be arrested for vandalism either ;-)

Re:No, you're wrong

[GuloGulo]

"Thank you for already going fast-forward to the part where I, and the 99,99% of /., can only laugh at you because there are no arguments left on your side of this conversation"

I'm glad you think I'm right, and that I don't need to make any more arguments.

Now go watch nascar, er... I mean code some open source project.

Re:No, you're wrong

[V!NCENT]

I'm glad you think I'm right, and that I don't need to make any more arguments.

What part of your brain is too stupid to understand that if you run out of arguments then you are, you know, wrong?!

Now go watch nascar, er... I mean code some open source project.

Good idea, after I figured out exactly what I'm going to do with the ideas that I have, I am going to code it. You see, I might even make some money with it, but it so happens that I am not an antisocial, greedy person.

This is proof of how Microsoft doesn't get it...

[reidconti]

I liked the quotes blaming the fact that "we haven't communicated the value of Vista."

But the biggest one to me was the quote from the dude who fired back about how Vista runs on much more hardware and blah blah blah. That's only a good thing to the few remaining geeks who build/upgrade their own systems yet still use Windows.

They're not viewing the issue from a consumer perspective. The consumer doesn't care how many thousands of video cards and usb-to-serial adapters the OS supports. They want to buy a computer, and use it. It wouldn't matter if Apple sold two computers, one called "Desktop" and one called "Laptop". As long as the OS does what it's supposed to do, and you can run your everyday apps, who cares?

Re:No, you're wrong

[GuloGulo]

"What part of your brain is too stupid to understand that if you run out of arguments then you are, you know, wrong?!"

Um, not if the arguments are correct.

And you call ME stupid...

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[raftpeople]

MAC = Media Access Control

Mac = Short for Apple Macintosh.

NOT IF YOU TYPE LIKE THIS!

Re:What Microsoft should do is suffer some

[davidsyes]

How do we, as consumers fucked into taking vista, start (or join?) a class action lawsuit to be granted a permanent, authentic copy of XP, as a bridge to wait and see what becomes of the next windows version?

I am SICK of seeing windows vista take 1.5 GB of my VirtualBox resources and run slower than dog-guana at times. Mandriva Linux 2008 on the machine (hosting VBox) runs faster, and that is in ~ 350 MB. I want to NOT have to go to ms site at all. I am NOT going to connect my laptop to them to get an update to vista. I rarely directly put it (the laptop) on a live network.

Why do consumers have to fight tooth and nail to get XP on a machine that is not fully up to the task but was marketed as being up to the task? KDE without Compiz/et al is far ahead of windows' Aero.

I'm venting, yes, and yes, *vista does work*, but i'd like that much RAM taken from windows and used by my CAD app (ViaCAD). As much as i can't stand ms, i'm almost ready to willingly pay $170 for XP if i can ever get the cash together. Vista should be rebuked, excoriated, repudiated, and FAST.

Re:No, you're wrong

[V!NCENT]

Um, not if the arguments are correct.

It is if one counters them and you can't counter ones counter argument(s).

And you call ME stupid...

Not only is some part of 'YOUR' brain unable to properly read (I clearly asked what part of your brain was too stupid and I haven't said that you were stupid) but you also continuing making people hate you (flaimebait, -1). What a great life do you have there man!

Corporate stupidity in a nutshell

[earlymon]

From TFA:

"My takeaway from Walt's article is that we have failed to communicate Vista's value," Russell said in an e-mail reply sent just 20 minutes after Warrier fired off his.

Where Russell is Richard Russell, a Microsoft development manager.

Not, gee whiz, the guy is telling us something, let's improve the product, here's our chance. Not, great - negative feedback is better than positive because it gives us a chance to know how to improve.

Nope. It's just let's communicate the value better - from a development manager.

This is what's wrong in every corporation that puts out a fucked up product, from my experience. I hate it.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Jamie's Nightmare]

CLI junkies (defined by doing more than execution of single use apps such as Lame) are typically those who are too lazy or too stupid to learn how to program. You would have enjoyed the Amiga. CLI shortcut on the top level.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[atraintocry]

And the vast majority of those users are happy to spell "Mac" correctly. That the occasional idiot gets it wrong doesn't mean we all need to start updating our dictionaries.

Thanks again!

[GuloGulo]

Yes, that's it, keep ranting and insulting me just like a football or nascar fan, in your effort to prove you're not just like a football or nascar fan.

"unable to read..."

No, I'm just smarter than you. Smart enough to realize that MY BRAIN IS PART OF ME.

"continuing making people hate you"

Confederacy of Dunces.
Seriously, WTF do I care that some loser ass fanbois mod me down for telling the truth about them?

Re:Thanks again!

[V!NCENT]

Telling the truth? Seriously... what are you basing this 'truth' on?

About the ranting; sorry, but you realy, no... realy asked for it... Instead of going for the 'context' you were going for the 'person'. If you have (and I'm not saying you haven't) got social skills then you would know what your post would trigger.

Don't apologize

[GuloGulo]

You shouldn't apologize, you proved me irrefutably correct.

I said you were like football and nascar fans and you proceeded to behave exactly like they do, thus proving me correct.

So don't apologize.

"you don't know what you post would trigger"

I know that in well adjusted individuals, it wouldn't trigger anything, and even if it did, they wouldn't act like a four year old then blame me for their behavior.

Like you did for instance.

Re:Don't apologize

[V!NCENT]

Well if you hate all these 'FLOSS fanboys' here so much, then I can only wonder; what are you doing here?

Re:Don't apologize

[GuloGulo]

Making fun of you, at least today.

Thanks for making it easy.

But in all seriousness, you do realize that this is "news for nerds, stuff that matters" right?

And that much of that news doesn't have a fucking thing to do with "FLOSS" right?

You're not very bright so I suppose it's possible you didn't know that until just now....

Re:Don't apologize

[V!NCENT]

Making fun of you, at least today.

Thanks for making it easy.

Wow that's such intelligent behavior! You know what kind of people your behavior matches? 'nuff said. If the answer to this doesn't instantly pop to your head that you are far beyond help.

But in all seriousness, you do realize that this is "news for nerds, stuff that matters" right?

And that much of that news doesn't have a fucking thing to do with "FLOSS" right?

And you do realize that MS Windows has nothing to do with nerds, right? And that FLOSS and Linux is kinda important here on "/.", right?

You're not very bright so I suppose it's possible you didn't know that until just now....

You meant; "I am too stupid to comprehent smart people and laugh at them for not understanding anything they say. But hé! I can allways find some minor thing to quote that has nothing to do with the entire message the parent that I'm quoting. That way I can still win the discussion because I have simply cutt it off".

Not exactly

[sxltrex]

Unless your wife installed a cracked version of XP she got off of Pirate Bay, Microsoft didn't lose a customer. I'm betting the license for the copy of XP she's running was paid for and did, in fact, generate a sale for MS. She probably also installed a paid for copy of Office as well.

Some PC manufacturer lost a sale but MS didn't. In fact, they probably made more money than they would have if they'd sold the OEM license.

OS X supports raw formats at the OS level

[snowwrestler]

Check it out

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[AmberBlackCat]

Somewhere out there, there's a girl for him, and she's converting his screen name to decimal right now...

That was then, this is now

[snowwrestler]

Microsoft's strategy for the last 20 years worked really well for them over the last 20 years. Now it's today, and unlike 20 years ago, there's already a Microsoft in the market--not to mention Linux.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that a 20 year old strategy would work just as well today as it did for Microsoft then. This is a sort of hindsight fallacy, where past success is mistaken for future guarantees. It's instructive that the one remaining competitor to Microsoft in the stand-alone OS market gives its product away for free (Linux).

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[hairyfeet]

You know,now that you mention it,I bet it drivers the servers nuts in those places that only serve Pepsi here in the South. For those that don't know "A coke" is the slang term everyone here uses for a cola,be it Coke,Pepsi,Dew etc. So everybody that walks through the door is going to say "and a coke" and I have even heard the old folks say "give me a Pepsi Coke" when they actually want a Pepsi. I know I always say "and a large coke" when frankly I don't give a damn WHAT kind of cola it is as long as it isn't that diet garbage.

Now for the article at hand: Is there anyone who is actually SURPRISED that MSFT was scared of OSX? Between all the confusion they created with Vista capable,ready,premium and then having to figure out if you actually bought it whether you need Basic,Home Premium,Business,Ultimate,etc(I know there is a couple more that fit in there somewhere) it is a total PITA when compared to OSX. No matter what Apple you buy,from the lowest mini to the most expensive Macbook Pro,it is all the same OS. Why MSFT couldn't have just went with the Home/Pro that worked for XP I'll never know. Although I'll have to admit that except for the ultra cheapo Walmart specials nearly every machine that crosses my desk runs XP Pro. XP Home always seemed to be that "also ran" that those that bought shitty machines from Best Buy ended up with.

But between the bugs,crazy system requirements,lack of real backwards compatibility(WTF was MSFT thinking? BC is their bread and butter!) lack of decent drivers,etc frankly the only call I have had for Vista is "Please remove this crap from my PC and put on XP" so it really doesn't surprise me that the guys in MSFT were worried before it even came out.

OT,but I'm at a dead end and I'm hoping one of my fellow slashdot IT guys can give me a hand: Does anyone know how to reset the BIOS password on a HP Pavilion ze5600 without having to rip the whole damned thing apart and yank the CMOS? I had a lady drop one off this morning,and apparently her daughter and her boyfriend were having a bad one,and in anger the girl locks the BIOS to keep him from spying on her,and then the dumbass forgot what she put in for a password. I figure I can rip the CMOS battery out and reset it that way,but this thing is a royal PITA to take apart and I'm hoping somebody here knows a better way. So has anyone here had exp with these HP Pavilion laptops?

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[riceboy50]

I did the CLI-only thing for a while in college. I felt very l337 browsing the web and watching movies via framebuffer. Then I got a job and got busy, so I started using Macs. :D

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said!

meme avoidance fail

[Tetsujin]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fail%5B2%5D

Main Entry:
2fail
Function:
noun
Date:
13th century
1 : failure --usually used in the phrase without fail
2 : a failure (as by a security dealer) to deliver or receive securities within a prescribed period after purchase or sale

Right. Which of those two uses was this again?

+1 Insightful, not -1 Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, now, just fess up. How much does Microsoft pay you to downmod insightful comments?

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahah, yeah, I'm a seasoned Windows, Linux, and Mac admin that recently purchased a Macbook to use for consulting work, since it could run all the OSes I have to support on one machine. I run lots of command line apps such as nmap and the like from an OS X terminal, I hack together C# programs in VS 08 running in a VirtualBox VM'd copy of XP. I build HA systems using my Mac to manage ESX servers. I'm really dumbing society down hardcore.

The stereotypes of a clueless user on a Mac might be generally true, but a few folks buy them because they know what they want and know Apple makes solid hardware.

Folks like me that buy a Mac don't dumb down society; myopic dumbasses like you dumb down society.

So?

[rtechie]

Marketing managers in general tend to panic whenever they run into a negative article in a mainstream publication. It doesn't mean anything.

The big concern about Vista before launch, and it's critical to the "Vista Capable" lawsuit, was that the OEMs didn't have their shit together. Despite years of extra time, many hardware manufacturers didn't have drivers ready and some (notably Creative) told Microsoft that using the new toolkit was too difficult and they would just release broken drivers for Vista. MS broke down and reluctantly wrote their own drivers for these devices. And lots and lots of others.

Worse, entry-level systems didn't have DirectX 9 cards (due to OEMs dragging their feet) and couldn't run Aero at launch. Vista Basic wasn't supposed to exist at all. Vista Basic and Vista Capable were something the OEMs insisted on because their $500 boxes couldn't really run Vista in January 2007.

Blame MS all you want but they gave the driver kit to the OEMs almost 8 years ago (Vista drivers are basically Windows Server 2003 drivers, they both use WDF). Betas were available to the OEMs nearly 2 years before launch. And in 8 years they couldn't get anything done. In many cases (80%?) all they had to do was change ONE LINE of code. I personally modified XP drivers for use in Vista, and yeah, I really just had to change one line of code.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[ozmanjusri]

What would Satan or Stallman do with his flatfish?

There's a plaice for everything.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[jo_ham]

Hey, I was making a joke in reply to a troll. I think you need to direct your hostility elsewhere!

Although, given that you're posting anonymously, I don't think there's much credence to your argument.

I think the regular, normal people have names.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[jo_ham]

I ADDRESSED THAT RESPONSE IN MY REPLY TO THIS THREAD ALREADY.

Wow, caps lock really is cruise control for cool. heh.

Lameness filter won;t take so many caps.

Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz, but only if it isn't in caps it seems.

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Inthewire]

So when someone orders Dr. Pepper and is offered Mr. Pibb...naw, it's "this will taste like shit, don't say I didn't warn you"

OSX got FASTER

[dafing]

I'm looking like the ultimate Fanboi here, but Mac OSX has consistently gotten faster with each new version. I consider them all fairly different, more than just service packs etc. 10.0 was slow as hell, 10.1 came out and added features while speeding up performance, 10.2 was faster still etc etc.

Some people have mentioned the last version, 10.5, as being slower, and that it had initial bugs. I havnt noticed it myself.

Tiger is old hat

[dafing]

Leopard is the latest release of OSX, minor quibble aside, what do you think a good idea for an Apple ad would be?

I dont like attack ads either, here in NZ we just had our elections, the party in power ran all these attack ads about the new Leader of the opposition, who became the Prime Minister (NZs version of a president), things about "you cant trust him" and "he was a money trader over in america you know, look what happened there, the rich guys ripped off the little guy, and X has $50 million bucks").

Mac fanatics like myself would say that Apple "invented" the mouse, the GUI, USB, stunning design etc etc. You know the drill by now :)

And yet Apple is still basically invisible worldwide when it comes to marketshare. I live in NZ, New Zealand, and we dont get lovely Fifth Avenue Apple Stores here, overall we get a couple "Big Box" stores per city that MAY have an iMac and a Macbook tucked away somewhere.

So Apple is thought of as something like Lamborghini, you see it on tv, people in womens magazines use Macbook Pros, not normal everyday people. I understand that the "mac vs pc" ads run all the time in america right? I think theres been maybe 3 that have been on NZ TV, and only ever on one channel. We got some iPhone ad, and one for the Macbook Air, but theres never stuff on normal tv etc for Apple.

Surely the best way for Apple to sell more Macs is for them to point out whats different, whats obviously worth spending a few thousand dollars on over the current PC a potential switcher has? BTW, Macs are more expensive here in NZ, and probably in many places like the UK than they are in USA. A normal iMac can end up costing 3000 NZD with a 3 year warranty and Microsoft Office for Mac thrown in. People deserve to know that its worth that, and that they can feel special about being an Apple user after paying that much :)

Sorry if you are annoyed by the American ads. I hope you decide to look at a Mac by yourself sometime, look at the hardware/software somewhere quiet, so you can make your own mind up and hopefully take the plunge. Have a super day.

Some wishes granted

[Anonymous Coward]

Right-click to Google: Already there, at least for all Cocoa-apps, and since Carbon is now declared dead (or specifically, will no longer be updated with new features), all apps will soon have this.
RAW support: Might misunderstand you here, but this is already included AFAICT.
Wireless: Make sure your network is included in the Preferred network list network settings, and then uncheck "Ask to join new networks", and things should be smoother for you.

iPhone

[dafing]

I got an unlocked iPhone before they came out here, stung me $790 NZ but its on a prepaid plan, it costs me much less than 10 NZD a month, only for what I use, 20c per txt etc.

I use my iPhone for everything, i even switch on its wifi (its through a couple of menus) and use a TV guide application that cost me a couple of dollars, just to see whats on tv next :)

And yet, here we actually do have the iPod Touch ad about gaming on it, and god it makes me itch for a touch! I would get one in a second if they had a 64GB version. I could fit my music by itself on the 32, but its too close to a thousand dollars for me in my mind here. You can buy a Dell with a 20 inch screen for the price of the 32GB Touch here.

Try and get an unlocked iPhone, I mean sure you actually pay the cost of the phone, gasp, but its worth it not having to pay 200 dollars a month like one of the initial NZ plans! ha, 199 for the iPhone 3G and then 200 a month for 2 years! Vodafone NZ changed it pretty quickly, it was all over the media here :) My $790 original iPhone looked cheap :)

(sadly) mod parent up

[dafing]

its not fair! its not fair!

Re:Walt Mossberg....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, looking at his other ramblings and the reader comments to them, people think Mossberg is a fucktard because he's such a blindly loyal Microsoft shill.

It's not really obvious in TFA but there's also a really sorry piece comparing Linux to Lotus 1-2-3, explaining it'll disappear for the same reasons. It would have been somewhat more realistic to pick a closed-source OS with non-standard formats for that comparo; as it is it doesn't make any kind of sense. (Whatever happens or fails to happen, the development model alone pretty much guarantees that Linux can't just disappear or even get left far behind feature wise; popularity is another thing altogether.)

(And in case it needs to be said, a happy Windows XP, FreeBSD 6, and OS X Tiger user here, with head up nobody's backside in particular.)

Re:I feel like the more people that use MAC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and the faggot you rode in on, you steaming mound of elephant shit. Now GTFO my /. before I PWP your asshole with a steel-toe boot. Obama for Black Man '08.

CACTUS

SAS and SPSS for Linux

[SgtChaireBourne]

... apps like SAS, SPSS, ...

For what it's worth, you have SAS for Linux already. They don't make the product easy to find, and there are a lot of deadlinks, but it works well -- if you can get it. Also, SPSS for Linux has been available for a while, too.

So you can let the researchers work on whichever platform makes the most productive, be it OS X or Linux. But the real boost is for the system maintenance team. Getting rid of the last of the Windows cruft from the LAN means that all those hours spent coddling and repairing M$ junk can be instead directed towards improving the computing environment. Providing better service is a better goal than just trying to keep things running long enough to get work done.

Walt = Apple, Mintz = Microsoft

[starshinecruzer]

For a sec there my eyes drifted down to the equal sign before I read the author name of the article. I thought they were comparing Walt Disney and Apple, and Microsoft with crappy animators.

Need more coffee. Funny tho. :)

Re:This is proof of how Microsoft doesn't get it..

[Jodka]

I liked the quotes blaming the fact that "we haven't communicated the value of Vista."

Yes, I wish I had included that in my original post. It buttresses the point that there is a persistent misbelief at Microsoft in a problem with marketing Vista and not with the quality of the product itself.

bundles

[krischik]

Actually most applications on a OS X system are bundles. Bundles are directories which are displayed by the GUI as on file.

Of course your argument still holds true: You install the application by copying its bundle into to application folder and you de-install by moving the bundle into the trash can. It does not get more simpler than that.

The user does not need to know and never notice that the bundle consists of lots and lots of files.

And even I as a power user who does know the underlying mechanism find it incredible simple and amazing. Because I - as a power user - know that moving the application icon into the trash can will actually and fully remove the application from my system.

Something I am never quite sure about with Windows de-installers.

Re:Walt Mossberg....

[Bourbonium]

That's odd. I've always heard Mossberg referred to as the Wall Street Journal's resident Macintosh Fanboy. He normally praises all things Apple and disses all things Redmond. Paul Thurrott of Windows IT Pro Magazine routinely rips him apart for his columns where he clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about. If you listen to his Windows Weekly podcast, you'll hear him fuming about something Mossberg has written that demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of Windows architecture, technology and history. In the very first paragraph of a recent Mossberg column, Thurrott pointed out no fewer than eight completely false statements about Windows Vista that suggested Mossberg had never even done the most rudimentary level of research to back up his assertions.

Yes, Mossberg is a tool, but one that commands a great deal of undeserved respect from millions of clueless WSJ readers (and business decision-makers).

MS has to care now

[BBTHEMAN]

The thing is MS now has to care about what they put out as opposed to us just accepting what they put out. They are F'ed!

You finally own up!

[GuloGulo]

"And you do realize that MS Windows has nothing to do with nerds, right?"

No.

"And that FLOSS and Linux is kinda important here on "/.", right?"

To you. I couldn't care less, and there's plenty of stuff to catch my interest. Maybe you should come to grips with the fact that no mater how your sorry loser ass tries to show it, this IS NOT A WEBSITE DEVOTED TO OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

Cry to your mom about it, but that won't change it, and it sure as fuck won't make your retarded objections to my visiting any less retarded.

"You meant; "I am too stupid to comprehent (sic) smart people"

At least you finally admit it, but you really shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

Re:You finally own up!

[V!NCENT]

"And you do realize that MS Windows has nothing to do with nerds, right?"

no

Ah, so you don't realise it. Hey I can do this kinda crap too!

To you. I couldn't care less[...]

Here's another one: So you are the majority of /.? Oh and before you start complaining as to why I made such assumption: The majority on /. cares about FLOSS, so when you say that I might but you don't then you're asuming that you realy are /. minus me. Yeah, one more time.

this IS NOT A WEBSITE DEVOTED TO OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

This is a website devoted to FLOSS, but not solely devoted to FLOSS!

"You meant; "I am too stupid to comprehent (sic) smart people"

At least you finally admit it, but you really shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

You are such a girl trying to turn around everything that is reasonable, or related to any kind of logic. Or you're still stuck in the days of your ignorant chilhood.... or both.

You continue to prove you're an idiot

[GuloGulo]

"Ah, so you don't realise it. Hey I can do this kinda crap too!"

No, because it's not true. I can't "realise" something that isn't true, so no, you fail.

Again.

"This is a website devoted to FLOSS, but not solely devoted to FLOSS!"

No it isn't. It's just a website that has some OSS content. Claiming it is "devoted" without any evidence apart from your opinion, which you're proven to be worthless because you're a liar, doesn't make it so.

"You are such a girl"

Wow, not only are you a liar, but you're a bigot and a misogynist. How fucking pathetic.

And I thought you couldn't make yourself look any worse.