My bet is on SAIC because I have worked with them before. I work in the safety critical industry and believe me it is absolutely terrifying how lax some companies are about security. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the summary was about lax customers turning a blind eye to security, not lax companies.
The only real difference between Microsoft and Apple: ...is that Apple actually makes good products. You could have just said that and saved a lot of typing.:-)
I guess my ignorance of Sysinternals or Nirosoft is paramount, because like most average users, I've never heard of them. Also like most average users, I'm consistently confronted with some flavor of installer, be it vendor based, the standard "Windows Installer" dialogue, or that stupid blue Windows InstallShield crap that is so prevalent. To the average user, it doesn't matter WHO makes the installer, only that there IS an installer. Compare that to a good Mac OSX "installer" (which isn't without its lack of installation conformity issues either) where the user drags the file from the source to their desktop then double clicks the icon, and the app launches.
In short, I don't believe you at all when you say that it is easy to package a single executable for use in the Windows environment.
Oh, and BTW, I spent over three years and big time bucks learning how to program in Windows, so I do know a bit about how programs work. The appeal-for-authority logical fallacy doesn't help either, because it shows a bias AND isn't even that authoritative.
Pointing to two random/vague examples doesn't support your claim either. Although, a quick look at Sysinternals and Nirosoft shows a bunch of simple utilities. Hardly the full-blown application installation process that I'm talking about.
I would have ignored your otherwise baseless rant against me, but you started it by calling me out for having a graduate degree and working for a software company in the next part of the thread (guilty as charged?). I'm still baffled to why you would think I'm lying about that since a) I'm random Joe user on slashdot, and b) what the hell does it matter?
I would say "annoyance" is definitely Microsoft's legacy. Remember Clippy? How about the daily reminder that you have unused shortcuts on your desktop? Ever try to "defeat" Microsoft's attempt to format YOUR Word document the way MICROSOFT thinks it should be outlined? Have you ever tried to use interesting and creative sentence structure, say for artistic endeavors, only to be green underlined? Thanks Microsoft, but I actually WANTED to use the passive voice there. Thanks for your help though!
Should I really have to hit F5 to refresh my screen after I rename a bunch of files, or is that "annoyance" a feature that actually helps me as a user somehow? Have you ever tried to rename a file that is open? Move it? Is it really that hard to keep a desktop shortcut link after you rename the original file? Do I really have to sit through ten minutes of copying a file, only to have it cancel 80% through because the target disk doesn't have enough space (why didn't it check before it started)? What other device on the planet has a 99% success rate for the following trouble shooting procedure: "Reboot"? Why do special characters require the alt key then three or four random numbers from the keypad (not the number row, gasp!), when a simple alt key plus letter/number suffices for other operating systems?
Backward compatibility is a losing proposition for Microsoft; while it keeps people locked into Windows, it also often keeps them from upgrading
F
But this also exposes the reason why Microsoft has 90% of the market.
I agree with you completely. Still, 90% market share doesn't equate to quality, only that Microsoft has 90% of the market, because of the snippet I quoted from the article:-)
Woah, take a deep breath. You took way too much away from my comment (and added a whole bunch of your own counter-fanboyism).
I was simply SUMMARIZING the point of the article, which is not one that I wrote, so they are not my words, so that doesn't make me a fanboy (in this case).
Point in case:
here are shit loads of smart devices like Mobile Phones, PDA's and Consoles that run Windows Mobile 6 edition which in fact is a FULL BLOWN pocket OS from microsoft, modular enough to run on these devices. Gives you the same app functionalities. IE, Windows media player, WinZip, Office etc., Sure, MS has a pocket OS, but the entire point of the article is that it is a completely separate product line with no modularity, creating unnecessary complexity and long and expensive development life cycles. Just in your example alone you mention THREE different mobile version os a Microsoft OS.
OSX, on the other hand, has an elegant modularity about it, allowing quick turnaround on development for things like iPhones and iPod touches, with the added benefit of a consolidated look-and-feel, corporate wide. You call it lock in, that's fine, don't buy it.
Wow. I ignored your first post, because it was not constructive. This one is even less constructive. I can't let this one go, however.
I'm not so sure what's so hard to believe about me. My graduate degree is in EDUCATION, not Computer Science. I don't believe I've misrepresented that anywhere. I work as the TRAINING DEVELOPMENT MANAGER of a software company that is a Microsoft Certified Partner. Again, is that so hard to believe?
So have I just been trolled or what? I don't understand your vitriol, seemingly out of the blue. Why can't you just join the conversation that Sancho and I have started?
Only, if there's no real benefit to actually changing Windows versions, why not just wipe and reinstall with the version of Windows that you already have? Because Vista is so cool? (...ducks..)
I've seen bits and pieces left over from such "uninstalled" OS X software. The biggest difference is that it tends not to bog down the system. T
Which was also my point.
You can quite easily download software and run it from a single executable, or from its own folder, as long as the software developer designed it that way. I have honestly NEVER seen a program on any flavor of Windows run from a single executable file. My long running gripe with Windows is that even the installer has to use an installer. I can't imagine anything other than the most simplest widget working in the way you described.
Then the question is, would it be worth it to upgrade a "crufted up" XP computer to Vista, if not just to get rid of the cruft? What would run faster, my mediocre P4 with a crufty XP build, or the same underpowered machine trying to run Vista? Or, does a Vista install on top of an old XP machine just suck in all the existing cruft? (I don't know, never used Vista, don't know how it installs on top of XP). Maybe Vista is getting a bum rap here (or maybe you have to format to install and my question is moot).
I'm pretty sure that if I tried, I could make a Linux machine run dog slow. Is it Linux's fault that such a possibility exists? See, I disagree. It would be Linux's fault if the default behavior of the user interface leaned towards users making mistakes and goofing up the system, as Microsoft is famous for doing.
I have so many "partially" uninstalled apps in WinXP because the uninstaller failed midway through, that I'm sure there's tons of stuff left behind getting in the way. This, however, is not my fault as the user. In Mac OSX, for example, there is no uninstall feature, yet it is perfectly ok to just throw the executable portion away and not worry about the remnants ever messing with your system (same goes for installing as well). The fault here is the architecture of how windows handles files and the clunky, outdated method of going about installing and uninstalling bits of code.
System cruft, while the fault of the OS, is not really germane to the discussion. Eventually, no matter what your specs, XP will succumb to cruft. Ok, then we agree. This is what I was trying to say, but wasn't sure how to word it. I agree, that a two-year old box SHOULD be able to run XP smoothly, but in real-world use, by average users, the "cruft" kills XP, which is the reality I was trying to point out.
Are you denying that nearly every family member in the history of computing hasn't dumped their two year old XP machine because it just started bogging down? I can't count how many new computers my parents and my wife's parents have gone through in the last five years. Why is there an article today on the front page of CNN that helps explain why your computer slows down with age? Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by presumptuous.
"Can't run XP" and "doesn't run XP very well" are two different things. My machines fall in the latter category. I'm sure a format/reinstall would invigorate them, but then again, degraded performance over time is a fault of the OS as well, so there's no alibi for XP there either.
no Linux and Mac are not better from a business stand point They would be if the business world wasn't so deeply dependent on substandard Microsoft proprietary formats. In other words, Microsoft is only better because businesses have shoe-horned themselves into a Microsoft dependent business model, NOT because Microsoft solutions are better.
The analogy I use is the English language. Just because the world has standardized on English when it comes to international relationships/business, doesn't infer that English is the best language on Earth.
When you sink billions into R&D (say for 5 years) and get crap at the end of it, you can't continue doing that for many 5 year cycles...kind of the point of the entire article, I'd say.
If YOU think Microsoft Vista is a good investment based on Microsoft's track record, then good luck to you. Will Microsoft curl up and die? Never. But, they could be diminished to the point of being a "niche" Operating System if the current OS jumping ship trends continue.
MS wants them to just buy it and the users want it to just work. That relationship will go on for a while. Seems like a one-way relationship to me, given the "just work" part has been hotly debated for the past, oh, 13 years or so.
The truth is, Vista runs fine on some machines in category 2 I have to disagree, only because XP sp2 doesn't work very well on my two Category 2 machines you list. I don't even dare think of trying Vista. I'm not flaming/trolling whatever here when I say my less-than-three year old P4 Compaqs with upgraded 3d cards still struggle mightily in tasks such as redrawing windows, shutting down, booting up, launching apps, etc. They feel like 10-year old machines, yet people "claim" they are Vista capable.
From the full article on computerworld.com
Backward compatibility is a losing proposition for Microsoft; while it keeps people locked into Windows, it also often keeps them from upgrading Finally somebody exposes the main reason Windows is not a cutting edge product, nor will it ever be (using the current business model).
I think you are missing the point. OS X is apparently scalable / modular enough to work on multiple types of devices whereas MS OSes are locked into the constantly-purchasing-new-cpu-every-two-years paradigm. MS OSes dictate hardware design not the other way around (as inferred by the iPhone reference).
Slashdot Mirror
Jobs doesn't care about your home-brew Hackintosh. He does care about Brand X selling hackintoshes, however.
In short, I don't believe you at all when you say that it is easy to package a single executable for use in the Windows environment.
Oh, and BTW, I spent over three years and big time bucks learning how to program in Windows, so I do know a bit about how programs work. The appeal-for-authority logical fallacy doesn't help either, because it shows a bias AND isn't even that authoritative. Pointing to two random/vague examples doesn't support your claim either. Although, a quick look at Sysinternals and Nirosoft shows a bunch of simple utilities. Hardly the full-blown application installation process that I'm talking about.I would have ignored your otherwise baseless rant against me, but you started it by calling me out for having a graduate degree and working for a software company in the next part of the thread (guilty as charged?). I'm still baffled to why you would think I'm lying about that since a) I'm random Joe user on slashdot, and b) what the hell does it matter?
Should I really have to hit F5 to refresh my screen after I rename a bunch of files, or is that "annoyance" a feature that actually helps me as a user somehow? Have you ever tried to rename a file that is open? Move it? Is it really that hard to keep a desktop shortcut link after you rename the original file? Do I really have to sit through ten minutes of copying a file, only to have it cancel 80% through because the target disk doesn't have enough space (why didn't it check before it started)? What other device on the planet has a 99% success rate for the following trouble shooting procedure: "Reboot"? Why do special characters require the alt key then three or four random numbers from the keypad (not the number row, gasp!), when a simple alt key plus letter/number suffices for other operating systems?
Man, I could go on forever.
But this also exposes the reason why Microsoft has 90% of the market.
I agree with you completely. Still, 90% market share doesn't equate to quality, only that Microsoft has 90% of the market, because of the snippet I quoted from the articleI was simply SUMMARIZING the point of the article, which is not one that I wrote, so they are not my words, so that doesn't make me a fanboy (in this case). Point in case:
here are shit loads of smart devices like Mobile Phones, PDA's and Consoles that run Windows Mobile 6 edition which in fact is a FULL BLOWN pocket OS from microsoft, modular enough to run on these devices. Gives you the same app functionalities. IE, Windows media player, WinZip, Office etc., Sure, MS has a pocket OS, but the entire point of the article is that it is a completely separate product line with no modularity, creating unnecessary complexity and long and expensive development life cycles. Just in your example alone you mention THREE different mobile version os a Microsoft OS.OSX, on the other hand, has an elegant modularity about it, allowing quick turnaround on development for things like iPhones and iPod touches, with the added benefit of a consolidated look-and-feel, corporate wide. You call it lock in, that's fine, don't buy it.
And you have to prove that you understand A FRIGGIN' JOKE.
I'm not so sure what's so hard to believe about me. My graduate degree is in EDUCATION, not Computer Science. I don't believe I've misrepresented that anywhere. I work as the TRAINING DEVELOPMENT MANAGER of a software company that is a Microsoft Certified Partner. Again, is that so hard to believe?
So have I just been trolled or what? I don't understand your vitriol, seemingly out of the blue. Why can't you just join the conversation that Sancho and I have started?
I can't believe you just accused my Compaqs of being better than anything, heh.
They may have been sued, but it did nothing to change their policy, as they still advertise never any late fees, or some nonsense.
Then the question is, would it be worth it to upgrade a "crufted up" XP computer to Vista, if not just to get rid of the cruft? What would run faster, my mediocre P4 with a crufty XP build, or the same underpowered machine trying to run Vista? Or, does a Vista install on top of an old XP machine just suck in all the existing cruft? (I don't know, never used Vista, don't know how it installs on top of XP). Maybe Vista is getting a bum rap here (or maybe you have to format to install and my question is moot).
I have so many "partially" uninstalled apps in WinXP because the uninstaller failed midway through, that I'm sure there's tons of stuff left behind getting in the way. This, however, is not my fault as the user. In Mac OSX, for example, there is no uninstall feature, yet it is perfectly ok to just throw the executable portion away and not worry about the remnants ever messing with your system (same goes for installing as well). The fault here is the architecture of how windows handles files and the clunky, outdated method of going about installing and uninstalling bits of code.
Are you denying that nearly every family member in the history of computing hasn't dumped their two year old XP machine because it just started bogging down? I can't count how many new computers my parents and my wife's parents have gone through in the last five years. Why is there an article today on the front page of CNN that helps explain why your computer slows down with age? Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by presumptuous.
"Can't run XP" and "doesn't run XP very well" are two different things. My machines fall in the latter category. I'm sure a format/reinstall would invigorate them, but then again, degraded performance over time is a fault of the OS as well, so there's no alibi for XP there either.
The analogy I use is the English language. Just because the world has standardized on English when it comes to international relationships/business, doesn't infer that English is the best language on Earth.
When you sink billions into R&D (say for 5 years) and get crap at the end of it, you can't continue doing that for many 5 year cycles...kind of the point of the entire article, I'd say. If YOU think Microsoft Vista is a good investment based on Microsoft's track record, then good luck to you. Will Microsoft curl up and die? Never. But, they could be diminished to the point of being a "niche" Operating System if the current OS jumping ship trends continue.
Excellent post, thanks!
I think you are missing the point. OS X is apparently scalable / modular enough to work on multiple types of devices whereas MS OSes are locked into the constantly-purchasing-new-cpu-every-two-years paradigm. MS OSes dictate hardware design not the other way around (as inferred by the iPhone reference).