I mean really, first a Trusted Computing chip, now "location awareness" to "fix" the fact that geolocation by IP is inacurate.
The thing is - when you have a platform that has video and location awareness it raises a host of issues including "What happens when this platform gets compromised by theives?"
We could argue about vista lol, honestly though, it was announced in like february that it would be delayed, so that wouldn't be very hard to predict.
With sprint he says: "WiMax will suffer under Sprint Nextel. My feeling here was that merging the two cell companies would be too distracting for them to do very much with their top asset (in my view) -- all those WiMax licenses. "
Sprint can't in good concience ship cards to consumers let alone do a wide spread deployment of hardware knowing that the silicon is largely untested. It would do wimax a disservice to deploy it before it is ready, and have people pay for it.
1) I predicted that Apple would announce iPhone and iTV products as well as content deals. The content deals happened and some of the iTV technology was demonstrated, but I think we'll have to wait another week or so for the rest, so I guess I was wrong.
Yeah, wrong. Not to mention that I wrote something about Apple moving in this direction a year and a half ago. This is no "prediction" its writing on the wall.
2) I said OS X would run on generic Intel hardware, though Apple wouldn't support it. This is true in the sense that people have made OS X run on generic Intel hardware, but APPLE hasn't, so the item is wrong.
There are a number of technical reasons that this will likely not happen. Yes, wrong.
3) More products, services, and a stock split for Google. I was right about the first bits but that's like predicting sunset will come. The split didn't happen because I never realized how much cash Google was going to generate -- far more than they can even spend. So the item is wrong.
Yeah, wrong
4) More bad news for Sun. That's true.
I might say that sun really has remained the same. If you use stock price as an indicator of "bad" then they are neither good nor bad. I might disagree with this assesment. Wrong.
5) IBM customers revolt. It is happening slower than makes sense, but yes, they are revolting. True.
Ok, whatever.
6) More Vista delay. I'm going to claim this one because the Vista that's just appearing was delayed twice in 2006 alone and is a shadow of what it was intended to be. True.
Yeah, no. You were wrong. Vista shipped in 06, I've seen the cd's myself.
7) PS3 is in trouble as is Howard Stringer. This is all true. The PS3 was late to market, the blue laser diode shortage has hurt the company, developers aren't amused, and the word inside Sony is that Sir Howard is toast. True.
Right.
8) WiMax will suffer under Sprint Nextel. My feeling here was that merging the two cell companies would be too distracting for them to do very much with their top asset (in my view) -- all those WiMax licenses. Since they didn't roll out much of anything in 2006, I'd say this one is true.
Not sprints fault. The standard hasn't really been ratified. There are only a few makers of the silicon necessary to drive the antennas. This has nothing to do with sprint and everything to do with the hardware. I'd say this is wrong.
9) Media Center PCs still won't take off as they try to compete with cheaper embedded devices. True.
Yeah, about right.
10) TiVo will be bought. Obviously wrong, though I still don't see the company surviving as an independent. Wrong.
No purchase, wrong.
11) Intel will rebrand itself and nobody will notice. Intel did, we didn't -- true.
Intel did not rebrand. They launched two new TV ads a few product logos - but they have the same "feel" of the last 15 years of advertising. I wouldn't really call that a "rebranding" effort. So, wrong.
12) No desktop OS or PC from Google. People (not me) were absolutely convinced this time last year that Google was going head-to- head against Windows. Nope. It didn't happen, and won't. I was correct.
Ok, right.
13) Skype won't make much, if any, money for eBay in 2006 (or 2007). Skype got a lot of press and moved a long way toward building a better service that makes more business sense, but the company is still at least a year away from making money. True.
Ok. Right
14) Yahoo will surprise us. Wrong. Yahoo is in a crisis from which the company may not recover with current management. Sigh.
Ok. Right.
15) Apple will license technology from Burst. They should have by now but the companies are still fighting in court. For those following the fight, a hearing on February 8th will lead to a decision less than a month later that will tightly define this patent battle in a way that will make one
i want some thought put into each new version of my software. if it will make my software easier/more powerful to use then i want a new and radical interface. i want some progress to be made each time i upgrade my software.
honestly, think about how many hours people at microsoft have spent over the last 15 years making sure that new versions of their software are "compatible" from a hardware, software and user interface perspective with previous versions?
why did they waste time on this inane task? because of people. like. you.
as much as i dislike apple, the don't give a crap about how their users felt about the old version of their software. Apple will if needed, move things around, change control types and looks and feels if it improves their software and user experience. it is for this reason that people look to apple for "progressive". The same people that look to apple in this way then stand and point at microsoft "The PC" and accuse them of being slow, lumbering and not innovative.
what is clear now is that it is not Microsoft that is slow and lumbering it is their customer base and their resitence to change. we've seen this cry twice recently once with IE 7, and now with Office 2007. i for one, hope this trend continues.
I said this earlier, and I think we both agree - DRM sucks, in any form. It's all steaming pile of dog doo, PlayMaybe or FairPlay it doesn't make a different. I actually don't buy iTunes music anymore becuase "i can't do what i want with it".
With that said I think that Apple ends up giving consumers less choices, which is what I would consider "more draconian". I also think Apple's handling of the licensing situation for FairPlay is definatly draconian and anti-competitive.
But again, DRM is crap and when measured by your standandards I think we both agree they are equally bad.
The best thing we can do as consumers is not purchase this garbage!
Probably because it didn't matter for Intel's pricing.
As I pointed out in other threads, Apple's hardware is completely custom. They design their own pcbs. The TCPM isn't something that you just throw in there - it's a design decision that Apple made, and there is a reason for it. We just don't know what it is, yet.
And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies.
Guess what! You can go buy another device that plays quick time movies, AND your drm'd WMA files. But you sure as hell aren't going to find an iPod that will play your FairPlay music and some WMA videos.
iPod DRM is draconian because it doesn't support Microsoft's proprietary DRM? WTF?
Wow, you just don't get it do you? Let me see if I can frame this in a way you can understand:
If you buy a song from iTunes (the only provider of FairPlay format music), there is only ONE portable device platform that you can play it on, the iPod. The key here is that you don't have a choice where to play the music, it HAS to be via Apple software and hardware.
Now, if you buy a song from some provider (oh yeah, you also have a choice who you buy your music from), in WMA format, you have a wide range of devices AND software to play it on. The difference here is that you have choice as to where you get your music, and what you play it on.
iPod DRM is draconian because you need an iPod to play it. That is, there is only ONE software package and ONE hardware device platform that supports the format. You cannot use anything else. The same is not true of WMA and the devices that support that format. Thus Microsofts DRM provides WMA format users more choice. Having a choce is typically not associated with Draconian practices.
Dude, Microsoft's DRM is just as closed as Apple's DRM.
It absolutely is not. The key difference between the two is that you can call up microsoft and say "I want people to play music with WMA DRM on my device." You'll pay a fee of some kind, but you can create the device, or software that you would like to be interoperable with the WMA format. This cannot be done with Apples format, Apple simply will not license FairPlay for use.
As a consumer this limits your choice and reduces Apples motivation to innovate with the FairPlay format because there is no competition.
Furthermore, if Microsoft did the same thing with the WMA format to the extent that Apple has, they would be in court in short order.
How is that worrying? Nothing uses the module, so there's no need to even acknowledge its existence. Apple probably doesn't want third-party programs to use it because they would break on Macs without TPM.
It still exists as a hardware device - it's just hidden from everyone, why? Why is it included at all? Seriously, WHY? There is no reason, unless there are plans to use it. As far as I know, no one else is including it.
That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is more draconian than Microsoft's DRM. So I can use music bought from a PlaysForSure/Zune store on my iPod? Oh, I can't. How is PlaysForSure less draconian than iTunes' DRM?
WMA files won't play on your iPod becuase the iPod is closed, and Apple will not implement it. That is not to say however that Apple cannot implement it. Microsoft would allow them to license the WMA format and implement WMA playback on the iPod as is evidenced by the large number of players that support WMA. However, th reverse is not true. Apple will not license FairPlay to anyone, and efforts to reverse engineer it have met with some legal resistance. So now for a blind taste test!
Format 1: Plays on one device with one player, unlicensable format. Format 2: Plays on multiple devices and using multiple media players, licensable format.
Which would you prefer?
Which is going to provide the customer with more choices?
You're missing the point of the original question. With Vista, you *will* have TC support, or you're not going to be able to play "premium" media, period, no choice. Sure, you're free to pick a system without TC support, but that's like saying you'll be free to pick a system without a hard drive or processor. Unless you don't care for music or movies or news or games or whatever, you've got no choice with Vista. See this article for example (also posted on Slashdot recently): http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ost.txt
Where is the mention of TCPM or Trusted Computing? I did a search and nothing came up.
Honestly that article is an excercise in what could be. There is no proof that any of these horrible outcomes will come to pass. In reading it there are certainly some aspects that are concerning such as driver revocation. However disrupting the user experience is NOT in M$'s best interests. I have a hard time seeing many of these things come to pass.
A broader range of choices, but Microsoft is still calling the shots. They could refuse to support some hardware and engineer the OS to accomplish this (as they have, occasionally, with software). It sounds like there will be extensive support for doing this sort of thing in Vista.
The hardware vendors develop the drivers, not Microsoft. Why would MS ever pull the plug on anything but defective, malicous, or insecure drivers? They are not a hardware company and cannot be.
Apple can do the same thing - they can realease an "update" that disables a particular piece of hardware, but why would they?
In fact, on a theoretical rather than practical level, there is actually *more* freedom in the Apple ecosystem, due to the fact that the basic operating system is open sourced.
The basic OS is, but the GUI, which is effectively Mac OS is not and never will be anything close to open source. Also, Apple has shown that they are willing to close Darwin (they have done this in the past) if necessary. Darwin on it's own is just another BSD, and there are better BSD's out there.
I'm not sure why everyone likes Apple so much they are a mini-monopoly, they have some of the worst manufacturing practices in the industry and they don't give a cent back to the non-shareholding world. What a great organization!
While some Intel Macs had TPM hardware, it was never used, not even for making sure Mac OS X ran on a Mac. More recent Macs don't even include it anymore (much to the chagrin of some people who actually did make use of it)
Did you read the site? There is no certainty around wether the TCPM is incuded or not. http://osxbook.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97 that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore.
Unlike Mac OS X, Linux does include drivers for TPM by default
And you can install them and uninstall them if you like. If and when apple throws the switch (and it may not be system wide) on the TCPM you won't have a choice but to use it (I guess you could switch to linux).
If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?
Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?
Nothing that Apple has ever done can't compare to what MS is doing. I mean, even remotely. It's not only not the same league, it's not even the same sports they're playing. Sorry, but MS very much is leading this charge.
Apple will enforce the same restrictions when macs start shipping with blue-ray/hd-dvd drives. You know, apple doesn't NEED to have an elaborate infrastructure to handle certification and testing of drivers. Primarily becuase Apple has a VERY limited hardware platform.
The link is really rather pointless - the article cites a number of issues and it seems the author takes issue with the fact that Microsoft is trying to assure higher standards for the hardware and software that goes into an end users pc. I can't really get into debuking that post as it's not really related to this discussion.
However, after reading the the second site, it does not say that the TCPM is not included (it states the chip included) it simply says that Apple is not currently using the TCPMs capabilities.
I think though that Apple is including and will continue to include that chip, and I am willing to bet that it will be used at a later date. We'll be told something to the effect of "iMovie download store is open! You'll need the latest Intel based hardware to access this content" under the auspices of "compatibility" when in fact, it will be becuase their encryption scheme will require the TCPM.
This is all well and good. However, when you put together a Windows system you have the choice of selecting a system that has/does not have a TCPM in it. In fact, you can hand pick your hardware down to mother board and ram modules. You cannot do the same with Apple.
What is important is that Apple doesn't really give details about a) why it is included b) what it is going to be used for. I think this is the most important fact: Apple's hardware is completely custom. The TCPM chip isn't just included "by accident" or because there is some BTX specification that requires it's inclusion ( as one might find in the PC industry ). The TCPM is included for one reason only, Apple made a decision to include it.
My point is basically that you have a choice here to deal with or not to deal with TCPM at the moment in the Windows world. The same is not true of Apple's land of Milk and iPods.
If TC is a success Apple will be forced by Hollywood to adopt it (at best), or simply excluded from playing major media (a scenario that Microsoft has considered no doubt, though they're probably thinking more of killing Linux with this...). With Intel supplying the hardware, Apple is at least in a position to respond by implementing this if they need to.
I think the situation is reversed... with Apple retaining the only widely deployed base of TCPM machines Apple is in a position to offer major movie studios the TCPM capability - that is they will be able to "secure" their content on Apple's hardware and provide a disstribution channel via iTunes. An offer that Microsoft cannot make because they do not control their deployment hardware. I see active deployment of TCPM on Apple's side as a preperation for a "first strike" in the video on demand movement. I think there is a reason that Apple has yet to get major movie studios on board with selling movies through iTunes and I think that has a lot to do with security concerns around their content, and possibly around pricing.
There is really no way to know with any of this. However, I do know that I don't want to buy hardware with TCPM, as I can see no tangible benefit in it.
Microsoft runs a music store, and has been desperately trying to control media on the desktop with Windows Media Player and the Media Center edition of their OS
Windows media player is harmless. The verdict is still out on Media Center edition as the product used to have a direction, PC/TV Convergence however that is no longer the case. We will see how it turns out when it is rolled into Vista.
And their "PlaysforSure" DRM is way more restrictive than Apple's.
How exactly? Last time I checked Apple had been actively trying to shut out competing companies from reading their "FairPlay" content. The iPod is also the only "official" player out there that works with iTunes music store music. The same is not true of Microsoft, their format and licensing terms, oh wait you CAN actually license their format, are far more favorable than Apple.
Apples intent is to own in it all, where as Microsoft is developing a platform that is far more interoperable.
Honestly, DRM sucks and is a bad deal for us all the way around. However, of the two implementations Microsofts is much more interoperable than Apple, there are also more "flexible" models, such as subscription based. Apple offers one model, you buy it and can listen to it on 5 machines and burn it 7 times, and that's it. Private, proprietary formats suck and the only people that lose are the consumers when a company like apple tries to control our choice.
Understand though that the organizations driving the move to DRM are not software companies - they are the record labels and the "cotent owners". The software companies are working to get paid along with the content owners. It's up the the consumers to avoid the whole DRM business and simply not buy DRM'd music.
Apple has led, is leading and will continue to lead the DRM future. Intel is close behind because they created HDCP, the hardware level copying mechanism in use by HDCP compliant HDMI ports in current generation high-end monitors and televisions.
Intel Macs now come with the beloved Trusted Computing module installed, and while most say that it is not used now, Apple is the only one deploying it widely to their user base. It will get used in the future.
Apple is now, and will continue the move to a media platform. Such a move is going to require very tight control over the content that is deployed to the platform. The only way that Apple can assure content providers that their content is "safe" is by deploying draconian measures to be sure that we cannot really "own" the content that we "borrow" from the rights holders, be it movies, songs, TV shows or newspapers.
Microsoft has less of interest in owning your content, sure they have to assure content providers that their content will not be used in improper ways - however their OS isn't targeted specifically to content creation and consumption. In reality, Microsoft can't really compete with Apple on completeness of media offering because they would be sued for anti-trust violations (and have).
While Microsoft has incorporated HDCP support for high-def content, the drives to play this content for pc's still range in the 000's. You can be sure when Apple starts to ship macs with blue-ray drives that HDCP will become a requirement. You also won't notice that it's there because with exception for the macpro and mac mini there is little need for external displays.
Interestingly, blue ray-discs may be encoded to play high def content via HDMI only at the studios discretion. Given that this capability exists today, Microsoft is not responsible for the movement to protect high def content.
To be clear, MS is not leading this charge. It has been built into the blue-ray standard, the hardware connections, and boards of a wide range of devices. This is a ground up attack at our ability to move content around. The MPAA and RIAA figure if you make the hardware aware of the content, then you can police the content better. They might be right... only time will tell.
If M$ does not deploy support for these standards then we will not have the ability to watch any of the content. The same will happen on OS X except that it will be less apparent due to the lack of HDCP compatibility issues across the most popular macs (MacBook, MacBook Pro). Apple will provide a better "user experience" because they control both the hardware and software that they sell to customers. Of course, Microsoft will look like the bad guy because they have little control over the hardware that ends up in consumers homes.
You just don't get it do you? It's not about the technology anymore.
All the security in the world isn't going to stop john q jane from authenticating itself and allowing a malicious program to run as root if it doesn't know any better. The only thing that will stop it from taking that action is it fully comprehending the chain of events that led to the request, and the subsequent outcome of approving it. I think many individuals just don't care, or don't understand the implication of such actions.
I will address some of your concerns:
"Unsupported assertion" - it's not unsupported, no one has successfully written a wide spread attack on OS X. There are holes in OS X, which is the point of the January 'sploit fest, as there are holes in almost every operating system.
"If it is "too much work" then you've strongly implied that OS X is fundamentally more secure than Windows" Actually what I said was "too much work with little gain". The return on the investment just isn't there. Look what PC's are being used for - botnets. There is real tangible value in open relays and DOS Nets, people will pay for the service, thus having a large collection of broadband connected computers to do as you wish has high value. When there is already an existing, ample supply of easily exploitable users and systems, why bother finding another source? BTW, we already know that Windows can be more easily exploited than other operating systems.
"since it is basically no work to make a Windows worm." Uh huh, so you have experience here? Seriously though - don't trivialize the complexity involved in deploying a large scale exploit and profiting from it.
"As for the gain, some worms are still written for reasons of prestige, which the first real OS X worm would create a lot of." Yeah, it would also land you in jail. And the OS X community as a whole seems to love their computers, I don't think anyone would really receive too many kudos.
"For financial gain, some recent worms have begun data mining and Macs have lots of valuable financial data, especially as compared to the average Windows box, many of which are pirated installs running in China or something."
This might be one of those unsupported assertion you've been talking about? What organizations use Macs to store their financial information? More over, which organizations have been subject to these data mining worms (that have yet to be written)? And what data mining worms? I thought there we're any? Having a background in IT in finance organizations I can tell you they most certainly don't run Macs. What type of "valuable" data? Sources?
"This is a very counter-productive attitude for a security person. Blame is irrelevant to good security, only results matter."
When you do all that you can to prevent a user from taking a harmful action as simple as running a program - and they continue to do it, what do you do? If users continue to grant programs admin access because they ask for trusted resources, what do you do then? Unlike OS X, that's where Microsoft is with their users. People keep running programs that they shouldn't. The answer, enforcing code signing and creating of a chain of trust between publisher and user is the only way. The problem is that to sign the code, you need to be a trusted party - and you must pay an external organization for that validation otherwise, the trust means nothing. Though, enforcing code signing simply is not an option and fundamentally disallows users from extending their computers further. There really is no answer to this problem when the end user is also tasked with the responsibility of administering his/her own system and is not qualified to do so.
"My personal data and all the presentations at security conferences I saw this year fail to support this assertion. Most malware spreads via user interaction."
Actually, that is basically what I said. Users cause malware to succeed; there are very few no click exploits for windows anymore. They usually re
I agree with you on almost everything - we take one thing for granted. We, as technical experts would never willingly divulge a root level password if prompted for a hard to determine reason.
Users, windows, linux, unix, bsd, what have you - if they don't know why, or don't care why they are being asked for the password, or are tricked into thinking that they are doing one task while executing another, may supply the root password to a bad program. There has already been a demo of such an exploit where a fake escalate box was displayed to an OS X user and snatched the admin password for their machine.
Kids I think are also much less aware of "bad" places and will easily follow links recieved from "trusted" sources such as IM's from friends and e-mails. This is something that I've observerd from watching younger individuals using pc's. I also consider the browser the fundamental pathway to destruction on end users systems. It is there that a program can either, exploit the host browser to gain system level access or gain the users consent to conduct priviledged activities.
One for the imagination: Browser (Firefox for example) has a hole. Malicious page drops an application on the file system and adds a login hook. Application loads the next time user logs in, asks for admin privileges, use types password. Application does bad things.
In this scenario the user would think the request for the password is associated with the action of logging in, and not due to a recent visit to a web page. No exploit is needed.
While we (computer peeps) won't reasonably allow ourselves to be compromised, self administered machines by uneducated or unknowing users will continue to be sources of compromise which is effectivly my point - mac users, especially linux users, and of course the ultra paranoid OpenBSD users know enough when something is fishy. I'm just making the point that 95% of the people out there just don't know enough to prevent getting pwnd.
"Mac OS X is a far more secure general purpose desktop operating system for most users than any viable alternative. There is almost zero malware of any kind "in the wild", no malware with vectors for mass propagation, and little with ANY kind of propagation capability whatsoever."
Because none has been written? How many people have bothered to write something for an OS with ~ 4% of the market share when there is a whole 96% out there waiting to be owned, apparently no one. There has been one attempt at a rudimentary Trojan recently, but OS X goes largely unexploited, and for good reasons - too much work with little gain.
It doesn't help that OS X actually uses a real programming language for the OS - this for the most part helps to keep the script kiddies out.
Here is the thing - when and if, OS X gains a reasonable amount of market share, you can be sure that it, and it's users will become a target.
What I think many people do not realize is that Microsoft is now trying to deal with protecting users from themselves. This is the basis for the whole UAC framework. Most of the malware is now propagated by users themselves. For example the find a "helpful" toolbar that says: "Download this great new toolbar!" the user clicks OK and they are owned. There is NOTHING to prevent this from happening on OS X, except for the fact that no one has bothered, yet. This issue isn't so much the technology as it is user education. Don't get me wrong, Windows makes it "easier" to exploit the system once you get user consent since there is really no privilege partitioning. However it is abundantly clear from stories about computer users are at fault when they get infected. Frequently we'll hear: "I did X, Y and Z and then the computer started acting funny!" The key being that the user actually did something to cause the infection.
I think, though I have no proof, that the present Mac user base is fundamentally savvier than the average PC user. This is quite likely to change as the number of adopters of OS X increases. This is why education needs to start now - about how to "safely" use a computer. And about how no one is really "safe" if they don't know how to distinguish bad actions (downloading and running un-trusted browser components) from good actions (not clicking on the attachment that says RUN ME!). Phishing is a perfect example of users not understanding how to determine if a page is legitimate or not. This form of attack it is not relegated to any particular platform.
Choosing a fringe operating system is one way out of the trap, but as the malware writers have shown over the last 5 years, they are smart, resourceful and capable of staying ahead of the curve.
I think maybe you should reexamine the reasons for the perceived sense of security afforded by OS X. I think it has less to do with technology and more to do with smarter users and a disinterest from the people who might want to own your machine.
I'm not sure that a DB based file system was really necessary though. There is really no reason to overcomplicate the task of accessing bits on disk. The important part that was kept in Vista are the hooks giving access to the content catalog of the indexing service so that applications can make important assets accessible to user searches.
I think we will see some pretty innovative developments due to the use of Aero. It makes the integration of 3d interfaces and 2d interfaces much easier and accessible to wider range of deveopers. With more people working on it, we should see some innovations.
My dates are totally wrong, I should have checked the wiki! XP was released shortly after the first version of OS X, there is no way that the longhorn roadmap was on paper by then.:-/ Thanks for pointing this out.
No... not at all. Microsoft certainly has their fair share intellectual property looting. What irritates me though is that so many are willing to entirely discount Microsofts ability to do anything creative or innovative at all, positive even. Mac fanboys seem to believe that any feature in OS X is simply there becuase Apple is so wonderful and innovative that the source of those innovations can't possibly come from someone else. Conversely anything that looks remotely like their world is of course spawned and driven by Apple. Also, I'm trying to make the point that OS X and Vista are NOT the same from a technical perspective - to programmers Vista and OS X have very different "interfaces".
The search does seem to work pretty well. I haven't really tried to push it though. Also, MS has basically replaced the Run command and the start menu browsing pattern with a simple field, type the name of anything in the field and it will show up in the start menu and you can click on it. At first I was kind of puzzled by it, but I've started to really like it. If you want calculator for example just type "cal" and up it comes. Definately an improvement.
Spotlight is pretty awesome though and I'm pretty sure that the full capabilities of spotlight don't compare to the vista search. I'll have to do some detailed testing.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, this is an awful use technology.
I mean really, first a Trusted Computing chip, now "location awareness" to "fix" the fact that geolocation by IP is inacurate.
The thing is - when you have a platform that has video and location awareness it raises a host of issues including "What happens when this platform gets compromised by theives?"
We could argue about vista lol, honestly though, it was announced in like february that it would be delayed, so that wouldn't be very hard to predict.
:)
With sprint he says: "WiMax will suffer under Sprint Nextel. My feeling here was that merging the two cell companies would be too distracting for them to do very much with their top asset (in my view) -- all those WiMax licenses. "
Sprint can't in good concience ship cards to consumers let alone do a wide spread deployment of hardware knowing that the silicon is largely untested. It would do wimax a disservice to deploy it before it is ready, and have people pay for it.
Yeah sun seems OK to me poor guys, lol.
so how about 7/15
All right so I did some poking around... guess I didn't notice for year ^ ^.
1) I predicted that Apple would announce iPhone and iTV products as well as content deals. The content deals happened and some of the iTV technology was demonstrated, but I think we'll have to wait another week or so for the rest, so I guess I was wrong.
Yeah, wrong. Not to mention that I wrote something about Apple moving in this direction a year and a half ago. This is no "prediction" its writing on the wall.
2) I said OS X would run on generic Intel hardware, though Apple wouldn't support it. This is true in the sense that people have made OS X run on generic Intel hardware, but APPLE hasn't, so the item is wrong.
There are a number of technical reasons that this will likely not happen. Yes, wrong.
3) More products, services, and a stock split for Google. I was right about the first bits but that's like predicting sunset will come. The split didn't happen because I never realized how much cash Google was going to generate -- far more than they can even spend. So the item is wrong.
Yeah, wrong
4) More bad news for Sun. That's true.
I might say that sun really has remained the same. If you use stock price as an indicator of "bad" then they are neither good nor bad. I might disagree with this assesment. Wrong.
5) IBM customers revolt. It is happening slower than makes sense, but yes, they are revolting. True.
Ok, whatever.
6) More Vista delay. I'm going to claim this one because the Vista that's just appearing was delayed twice in 2006 alone and is a shadow of what it was intended to be. True.
Yeah, no. You were wrong. Vista shipped in 06, I've seen the cd's myself.
7) PS3 is in trouble as is Howard Stringer. This is all true. The PS3 was late to market, the blue laser diode shortage has hurt the company, developers aren't amused, and the word inside Sony is that Sir Howard is toast. True.
Right.
8) WiMax will suffer under Sprint Nextel. My feeling here was that merging the two cell companies would be too distracting for them to do very much with their top asset (in my view) -- all those WiMax licenses. Since they didn't roll out much of anything in 2006, I'd say this one is true.
Not sprints fault. The standard hasn't really been ratified. There are only a few makers of the silicon necessary to drive the antennas. This has nothing to do with sprint and everything to do with the hardware. I'd say this is wrong.
9) Media Center PCs still won't take off as they try to compete with cheaper embedded devices. True.
Yeah, about right.
10) TiVo will be bought. Obviously wrong, though I still don't see the company surviving as an independent. Wrong.
No purchase, wrong.
11) Intel will rebrand itself and nobody will notice. Intel did, we didn't -- true.
Intel did not rebrand. They launched two new TV ads a few product logos - but they have the same "feel" of the last 15 years of advertising. I wouldn't really call that a "rebranding" effort. So, wrong.
12) No desktop OS or PC from Google. People (not me) were absolutely convinced this time last year that Google was going head-to- head against Windows. Nope. It didn't happen, and won't. I was correct.
Ok, right.
13) Skype won't make much, if any, money for eBay in 2006 (or 2007). Skype got a lot of press and moved a long way toward building a better service that makes more business sense, but the company is still at least a year away from making money. True.
Ok. Right
14) Yahoo will surprise us. Wrong. Yahoo is in a crisis from which the company may not recover with current management. Sigh.
Ok. Right.
15) Apple will license technology from Burst. They should have by now but the companies are still fighting in court. For those following the fight, a hearing on February 8th will lead to a decision less than a month later that will tightly define this patent battle in a way that will make one
flamebait me if you want.
i want some thought put into each new version of my software. if it will make my software easier/more powerful to use then i want a new and radical interface. i want some progress to be made each time i upgrade my software.
honestly, think about how many hours people at microsoft have spent over the last 15 years making sure that new versions of their software are "compatible" from a hardware, software and user interface perspective with previous versions?
why did they waste time on this inane task? because of people. like. you.
as much as i dislike apple, the don't give a crap about how their users felt about the old version of their software. Apple will if needed, move things around, change control types and looks and feels if it improves their software and user experience. it is for this reason that people look to apple for "progressive". The same people that look to apple in this way then stand and point at microsoft "The PC" and accuse them of being slow, lumbering and not innovative.
what is clear now is that it is not Microsoft that is slow and lumbering it is their customer base and their resitence to change. we've seen this cry twice recently once with IE 7, and now with Office 2007. i for one, hope this trend continues.
good bye, and good luck.
I said this earlier, and I think we both agree - DRM sucks, in any form. It's all steaming pile of dog doo, PlayMaybe or FairPlay it doesn't make a different. I actually don't buy iTunes music anymore becuase "i can't do what i want with it".
With that said I think that Apple ends up giving consumers less choices, which is what I would consider "more draconian". I also think Apple's handling of the licensing situation for FairPlay is definatly draconian and anti-competitive.
But again, DRM is crap and when measured by your standandards I think we both agree they are equally bad.
The best thing we can do as consumers is not purchase this garbage!
Probably because it didn't matter for Intel's pricing.
As I pointed out in other threads, Apple's hardware is completely custom. They design their own pcbs. The TCPM isn't something that you just throw in there - it's a design decision that Apple made, and there is a reason for it. We just don't know what it is, yet.
And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies.
Guess what! You can go buy another device that plays quick time movies, AND your drm'd WMA files. But you sure as hell aren't going to find an iPod that will play your FairPlay music and some WMA videos.
iPod DRM is draconian because it doesn't support Microsoft's proprietary DRM? WTF?
Wow, you just don't get it do you? Let me see if I can frame this in a way you can understand:
If you buy a song from iTunes (the only provider of FairPlay format music), there is only ONE portable device platform that you can play it on, the iPod. The key here is that you don't have a choice where to play the music, it HAS to be via Apple software and hardware.
Now, if you buy a song from some provider (oh yeah, you also have a choice who you buy your music from), in WMA format, you have a wide range of devices AND software to play it on. The difference here is that you have choice as to where you get your music, and what you play it on.
iPod DRM is draconian because you need an iPod to play it. That is, there is only ONE software package and ONE hardware device platform that supports the format. You cannot use anything else. The same is not true of WMA and the devices that support that format. Thus Microsofts DRM provides WMA format users more choice. Having a choce is typically not associated with Draconian practices.
Dude, Microsoft's DRM is just as closed as Apple's DRM.
It absolutely is not. The key difference between the two is that you can call up microsoft and say "I want people to play music with WMA DRM on my device." You'll pay a fee of some kind, but you can create the device, or software that you would like to be interoperable with the WMA format. This cannot be done with Apples format, Apple simply will not license FairPlay for use.
As a consumer this limits your choice and reduces Apples motivation to innovate with the FairPlay format because there is no competition.
Furthermore, if Microsoft did the same thing with the WMA format to the extent that Apple has, they would be in court in short order.
How is that worrying? Nothing uses the module, so there's no need to even acknowledge its existence. Apple probably doesn't want third-party programs to use it because they would break on Macs without TPM.
It still exists as a hardware device - it's just hidden from everyone, why? Why is it included at all? Seriously, WHY? There is no reason, unless there are plans to use it. As far as I know, no one else is including it.
That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is more draconian than Microsoft's DRM. So I can use music bought from a PlaysForSure/Zune store on my iPod? Oh, I can't. How is PlaysForSure less draconian than iTunes' DRM?
WMA files won't play on your iPod becuase the iPod is closed, and Apple will not implement it. That is not to say however that Apple cannot implement it. Microsoft would allow them to license the WMA format and implement WMA playback on the iPod as is evidenced by the large number of players that support WMA. However, th reverse is not true. Apple will not license FairPlay to anyone, and efforts to reverse engineer it have met with some legal resistance. So now for a blind taste test!
Format 1: Plays on one device with one player, unlicensable format.
Format 2: Plays on multiple devices and using multiple media players, licensable format.
Which would you prefer?
Which is going to provide the customer with more choices?
You're missing the point of the original question. With Vista, you *will* have TC support, or you're not going to be able to play "premium" media, period, no choice.c ost.txt
Sure, you're free to pick a system without TC support, but that's like saying you'll be free to pick a system without a hard drive or processor.
Unless you don't care for music or movies or news or games or whatever, you've got no choice with Vista.
See this article for example (also posted on Slashdot recently):
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_
Where is the mention of TCPM or Trusted Computing? I did a search and nothing came up.
Honestly that article is an excercise in what could be. There is no proof that any of these horrible outcomes will come to pass. In reading it there are certainly some aspects that are concerning such as driver revocation. However disrupting the user experience is NOT in M$'s best interests. I have a hard time seeing many of these things come to pass.
A broader range of choices, but Microsoft is still calling the shots. They could refuse to support some hardware and engineer the OS to accomplish this (as they have, occasionally, with software). It sounds like there will be extensive support for doing this sort of thing in Vista.
The hardware vendors develop the drivers, not Microsoft. Why would MS ever pull the plug on anything but defective, malicous, or insecure drivers? They are not a hardware company and cannot be.
Apple can do the same thing - they can realease an "update" that disables a particular piece of hardware, but why would they?
In fact, on a theoretical rather than practical level, there is actually *more* freedom in the Apple ecosystem, due to the fact that the
basic operating system is open sourced.
The basic OS is, but the GUI, which is effectively Mac OS is not and never will be anything close to open source. Also, Apple has shown that they are willing to close Darwin (they have done this in the past) if necessary. Darwin on it's own is just another BSD, and there are better BSD's out there.
I'm not sure why everyone likes Apple so much they are a mini-monopoly, they have some of the worst manufacturing practices in the industry and they don't give a cent back to the non-shareholding world. What a great organization!
While some Intel Macs had TPM hardware, it was never used, not even for making sure Mac OS X ran on a Mac. More recent Macs don't even include it anymore (much to the chagrin of some people who actually did make use of it)
Did you read the site? There is no certainty around wether the TCPM is incuded or not. http://osxbook.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97 that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore.
Unlike Mac OS X, Linux does include drivers for TPM by default
And you can install them and uninstall them if you like. If and when apple throws the switch (and it may not be system wide) on the TCPM you won't have a choice but to use it (I guess you could switch to linux).
If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?
Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?
Nothing that Apple has ever done can't compare to what MS is doing. I mean, even remotely. It's not only not the same league, it's not even the same sports they're playing. Sorry, but MS very much is leading this charge.
Apple will enforce the same restrictions when macs start shipping with blue-ray/hd-dvd drives. You know, apple doesn't NEED to have an elaborate infrastructure to handle certification and testing of drivers. Primarily becuase Apple has a VERY limited hardware platform.
The link is really rather pointless - the article cites a number of issues and it seems the author takes issue with the fact that Microsoft is trying to assure higher standards for the hardware and software that goes into an end users pc. I can't really get into debuking that post as it's not really related to this discussion.
Do you have a source for this? I looked around and I couldn't find anything definitive. I did find this site:d -computing/ but it cites this site: http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ as the source of this information.
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/11/02/apple-drops-truste
However, after reading the the second site, it does not say that the TCPM is not included (it states the chip included) it simply says that Apple is not currently using the TCPMs capabilities.
I think though that Apple is including and will continue to include that chip, and I am willing to bet that it will be used at a later date. We'll be told something to the effect of "iMovie download store is open! You'll need the latest Intel based hardware to access this content" under the auspices of "compatibility" when in fact, it will be becuase their encryption scheme will require the TCPM.
This is all well and good. However, when you put together a Windows system you have the choice of selecting a system that has/does not have a TCPM in it. In fact, you can hand pick your hardware down to mother board and ram modules. You cannot do the same with Apple.
What is important is that Apple doesn't really give details about a) why it is included b) what it is going to be used for.
I think this is the most important fact: Apple's hardware is completely custom. The TCPM chip isn't just included "by accident" or because there is some BTX specification that requires it's inclusion ( as one might find in the PC industry ). The TCPM is included for one reason only, Apple made a decision to include it.
My point is basically that you have a choice here to deal with or not to deal with TCPM at the moment in the Windows world. The same is not true of Apple's land of Milk and iPods.
If TC is a success Apple will be forced by Hollywood to adopt it (at best), or simply excluded from playing major media (a scenario that Microsoft has considered no doubt, though they're probably thinking more of killing Linux with this...). With Intel supplying the hardware, Apple is at least in a position to respond by implementing this if they need to.
I think the situation is reversed... with Apple retaining the only widely deployed base of TCPM machines Apple is in a position to offer major movie studios the TCPM capability - that is they will be able to "secure" their content on Apple's hardware and provide a disstribution channel via iTunes. An offer that Microsoft cannot make because they do not control their deployment hardware. I see active deployment of TCPM on Apple's side as a preperation for a "first strike" in the video on demand movement. I think there is a reason that Apple has yet to get major movie studios on board with selling movies through iTunes and I think that has a lot to do with security concerns around their content, and possibly around pricing.
There is really no way to know with any of this. However, I do know that I don't want to buy hardware with TCPM, as I can see no tangible benefit in it.
Microsoft runs a music store, and has been desperately trying to control media on the desktop with Windows Media Player and the Media Center edition of their OS
Windows media player is harmless. The verdict is still out on Media Center edition as the product used to have a direction, PC/TV Convergence however that is no longer the case. We will see how it turns out when it is rolled into Vista.
And their "PlaysforSure" DRM is way more restrictive than Apple's.
How exactly? Last time I checked Apple had been actively trying to shut out competing companies from reading their "FairPlay" content. The iPod is also the only "official" player out there that works with iTunes music store music. The same is not true of Microsoft, their format and licensing terms, oh wait you CAN actually license their format, are far more favorable than Apple.
Apples intent is to own in it all, where as Microsoft is developing a platform that is far more interoperable.
Honestly, DRM sucks and is a bad deal for us all the way around. However, of the two implementations Microsofts is much more interoperable than Apple, there are also more "flexible" models, such as subscription based. Apple offers one model, you buy it and can listen to it on 5 machines and burn it 7 times, and that's it. Private, proprietary formats suck and the only people that lose are the consumers when a company like apple tries to control our choice.
Understand though that the organizations driving the move to DRM are not software companies - they are the record labels and the "cotent owners". The software companies are working to get paid along with the content owners. It's up the the consumers to avoid the whole DRM business and simply not buy DRM'd music.
Apple has led, is leading and will continue to lead the DRM future. Intel is close behind because they created HDCP, the hardware level copying mechanism in use by HDCP compliant HDMI ports in current generation high-end monitors and televisions.
Intel Macs now come with the beloved Trusted Computing module installed, and while most say that it is not used now, Apple is the only one deploying it widely to their user base. It will get used in the future.
Apple is now, and will continue the move to a media platform. Such a move is going to require very tight control over the content that is deployed to the platform. The only way that Apple can assure content providers that their content is "safe" is by deploying draconian measures to be sure that we cannot really "own" the content that we "borrow" from the rights holders, be it movies, songs, TV shows or newspapers.
Microsoft has less of interest in owning your content, sure they have to assure content providers that their content will not be used in improper ways - however their OS isn't targeted specifically to content creation and consumption. In reality, Microsoft can't really compete with Apple on completeness of media offering because they would be sued for anti-trust violations (and have).
While Microsoft has incorporated HDCP support for high-def content, the drives to play this content for pc's still range in the 000's. You can be sure when Apple starts to ship macs with blue-ray drives that HDCP will become a requirement. You also won't notice that it's there because with exception for the macpro and mac mini there is little need for external displays.
Interestingly, blue ray-discs may be encoded to play high def content via HDMI only at the studios discretion. Given that this capability exists today, Microsoft is not responsible for the movement to protect high def content.
To be clear, MS is not leading this charge. It has been built into the blue-ray standard, the hardware connections, and boards of a wide range of devices. This is a ground up attack at our ability to move content around. The MPAA and RIAA figure if you make the hardware aware of the content, then you can police the content better. They might be right... only time will tell.
If M$ does not deploy support for these standards then we will not have the ability to watch any of the content. The same will happen on OS X except that it will be less apparent due to the lack of HDCP compatibility issues across the most popular macs (MacBook, MacBook Pro). Apple will provide a better "user experience" because they control both the hardware and software that they sell to customers. Of course, Microsoft will look like the bad guy because they have little control over the hardware that ends up in consumers homes.
Microwave.
A few seconds in your microwave will be enough to roast that evil chip. Get to it!
So apple finally tears a page out of Microsofts book and builds an OS for embedded devices. Lol. And this is news because....
You just don't get it do you? It's not about the technology anymore.
All the security in the world isn't going to stop john q jane from authenticating itself and allowing a malicious program to run as root if it doesn't know any better. The only thing that will stop it from taking that action is it fully comprehending the chain of events that led to the request, and the subsequent outcome of approving it. I think many individuals just don't care, or don't understand the implication of such actions.
I will address some of your concerns:
"Unsupported assertion" - it's not unsupported, no one has successfully written a wide spread attack on OS X. There are holes in OS X, which is the point of the January 'sploit fest, as there are holes in almost every operating system.
"If it is "too much work" then you've strongly implied that OS X is fundamentally more secure than Windows"
Actually what I said was "too much work with little gain". The return on the investment just isn't there. Look what PC's are being used for - botnets. There is real tangible value in open relays and DOS Nets, people will pay for the service, thus having a large collection of broadband connected computers to do as you wish has high value. When there is already an existing, ample supply of easily exploitable users and systems, why bother finding another source? BTW, we already know that Windows can be more easily exploited than other operating systems.
"since it is basically no work to make a Windows worm."
Uh huh, so you have experience here? Seriously though - don't trivialize the complexity involved in deploying a large scale exploit and profiting from it.
"As for the gain, some worms are still written for reasons of prestige, which the first real OS X worm would create a lot of."
Yeah, it would also land you in jail. And the OS X community as a whole seems to love their computers, I don't think anyone would really receive too many kudos.
"For financial gain, some recent worms have begun data mining and Macs have lots of valuable financial data, especially as compared to the average Windows box, many of which are pirated installs running in China or something."
This might be one of those unsupported assertion you've been talking about? What organizations use Macs to store their financial information? More over, which organizations have been subject to these data mining worms (that have yet to be written)? And what data mining worms? I thought there we're any? Having a background in IT in finance organizations I can tell you they most certainly don't run Macs. What type of "valuable" data? Sources?
"This is a very counter-productive attitude for a security person. Blame is irrelevant to good security, only results matter."
When you do all that you can to prevent a user from taking a harmful action as simple as running a program - and they continue to do it, what do you do? If users continue to grant programs admin access because they ask for trusted resources, what do you do then? Unlike OS X, that's where Microsoft is with their users. People keep running programs that they shouldn't. The answer, enforcing code signing and creating of a chain of trust between publisher and user is the only way. The problem is that to sign the code, you need to be a trusted party - and you must pay an external organization for that validation otherwise, the trust means nothing. Though, enforcing code signing simply is not an option and fundamentally disallows users from extending their computers further.
There really is no answer to this problem when the end user is also tasked with the responsibility of administering his/her own system and is not qualified to do so.
"My personal data and all the presentations at security conferences I saw this year fail to support this assertion. Most malware spreads via user interaction."
Actually, that is basically what I said. Users cause malware to succeed; there are very few no click exploits for windows anymore. They usually re
I agree with you on almost everything - we take one thing for granted. We, as technical experts would never willingly divulge a root level password if prompted for a hard to determine reason.
Users, windows, linux, unix, bsd, what have you - if they don't know why, or don't care why they are being asked for the password, or are tricked into thinking that they are doing one task while executing another, may supply the root password to a bad program. There has already been a demo of such an exploit where a fake escalate box was displayed to an OS X user and snatched the admin password for their machine.
Kids I think are also much less aware of "bad" places and will easily follow links recieved from "trusted" sources such as IM's from friends and e-mails. This is something that I've observerd from watching younger individuals using pc's. I also consider the browser the fundamental pathway to destruction on end users systems. It is there that a program can either, exploit the host browser to gain system level access or gain the users consent to conduct priviledged activities.
One for the imagination:
Browser (Firefox for example) has a hole.
Malicious page drops an application on the file system and adds a login hook.
Application loads the next time user logs in, asks for admin privileges, use types password.
Application does bad things.
In this scenario the user would think the request for the password is associated with the action of logging in, and not due to a recent visit to a web page. No exploit is needed.
While we (computer peeps) won't reasonably allow ourselves to be compromised, self administered machines by uneducated or unknowing users will continue to be sources of compromise which is effectivly my point - mac users, especially linux users, and of course the ultra paranoid OpenBSD users know enough when something is fishy. I'm just making the point that 95% of the people out there just don't know enough to prevent getting pwnd.
I 3 BeOS. Too bad it went the way of the wizard.
"Mac OS X is a far more secure general purpose desktop operating system for most users than any viable alternative. There is almost zero malware of any kind "in the wild", no malware with vectors for mass propagation, and little with ANY kind of propagation capability whatsoever."
Because none has been written? How many people have bothered to write something for an OS with ~ 4% of the market share when there is a whole 96% out there waiting to be owned, apparently no one. There has been one attempt at a rudimentary Trojan recently, but OS X goes largely unexploited, and for good reasons - too much work with little gain.
It doesn't help that OS X actually uses a real programming language for the OS - this for the most part helps to keep the script kiddies out.
Here is the thing - when and if, OS X gains a reasonable amount of market share, you can be sure that it, and it's users will become a target.
What I think many people do not realize is that Microsoft is now trying to deal with protecting users from themselves. This is the basis for the whole UAC framework. Most of the malware is now propagated by users themselves. For example the find a "helpful" toolbar that says: "Download this great new toolbar!" the user clicks OK and they are owned. There is NOTHING to prevent this from happening on OS X, except for the fact that no one has bothered, yet. This issue isn't so much the technology as it is user education. Don't get me wrong, Windows makes it "easier" to exploit the system once you get user consent since there is really no privilege partitioning. However it is abundantly clear from stories about computer users are at fault when they get infected. Frequently we'll hear: "I did X, Y and Z and then the computer started acting funny!" The key being that the user actually did something to cause the infection.
I think, though I have no proof, that the present Mac user base is fundamentally savvier than the average PC user. This is quite likely to change as the number of adopters of OS X increases. This is why education needs to start now - about how to "safely" use a computer. And about how no one is really "safe" if they don't know how to distinguish bad actions (downloading and running un-trusted browser components) from good actions (not clicking on the attachment that says RUN ME!). Phishing is a perfect example of users not understanding how to determine if a page is legitimate or not. This form of attack it is not relegated to any particular platform.
Choosing a fringe operating system is one way out of the trap, but as the malware writers have shown over the last 5 years, they are smart, resourceful and capable of staying ahead of the curve.
I think maybe you should reexamine the reasons for the perceived sense of security afforded by OS X. I think it has less to do with technology and more to do with smarter users and a disinterest from the people who might want to own your machine.
You are the president.
I'm not sure that a DB based file system was really necessary though. There is really no reason to overcomplicate the task of accessing bits on disk. The important part that was kept in Vista are the hooks giving access to the content catalog of the indexing service so that applications can make important assets accessible to user searches.
I think we will see some pretty innovative developments due to the use of Aero. It makes the integration of 3d interfaces and 2d interfaces much easier and accessible to wider range of deveopers. With more people working on it, we should see some innovations.
My dates are totally wrong, I should have checked the wiki! XP was released shortly after the first version of OS X, there is no way that the longhorn roadmap was on paper by then. :-/ Thanks for pointing this out.
No... not at all. Microsoft certainly has their fair share intellectual property looting. What irritates me though is that so many are willing to entirely discount Microsofts ability to do anything creative or innovative at all, positive even. Mac fanboys seem to believe that any feature in OS X is simply there becuase Apple is so wonderful and innovative that the source of those innovations can't possibly come from someone else. Conversely anything that looks remotely like their world is of course spawned and driven by Apple. Also, I'm trying to make the point that OS X and Vista are NOT the same from a technical perspective - to programmers Vista and OS X have very different "interfaces".
The search does seem to work pretty well. I haven't really tried to push it though. Also, MS has basically replaced the Run command and the start menu browsing pattern with a simple field, type the name of anything in the field and it will show up in the start menu and you can click on it. At first I was kind of puzzled by it, but I've started to really like it. If you want calculator for example just type "cal" and up it comes. Definately an improvement.
Spotlight is pretty awesome though and I'm pretty sure that the full capabilities of spotlight don't compare to the vista search. I'll have to do some detailed testing.