Me too... or rather I'm surprised I'm not having more of a problem with this.
I switched from a 12" PowerBook to a MacBook, and I gotta say... I love it. I too thought the "crappy plastic keys" would bother me, but 1) I adapted to them after about 15 minutes of typing, 2) They're really comfortable, at least for me. and 3) The PowerBook's keys turned out to be plastic too (don't believe me? Pry one up and look at the underside.
The glossy screen really isn't too bad, although I guess it can be annoying at times. For the most part though, I don't notice it unless I happen to have a very bright light shining directly at the screen from behind me. It certainly helps the movie experience, and colours look far less "washed out" than they did on the PowerBook. That, and the screen seems to be about 1000x brighter, which is a nice plus.
Also, the MacBook is wider than a PowerBook/iBook, but it's a bit shorter. If you travel on airplanes, you'll find this to be A Good Thing (tm).
The severity of the virus, the spread of the virus, and the stupidity of the users necessary for the the first two.
The few viruses (they were actually non self-replicating trojans -- most were modified versions of Opener) that affected people on rumour forums required people to give the trojan/script admin (sudo) privileges. I'm sorry, but no matter what OS you're on, giving a virus sudo means game over.
This is one of those rumours (especially the OSXon-a-phone part) where I look at the rumour-sayer and repeat: "Are you retarded?"
Seriously -- there are a variety of technical reasons why Apple will never try and embed OS X in a phone... I would hope that anyone reading this comment can guess why. If you need a hint, think of why the iPod doesn't do OS X (something about overkill, the bad example of Windows XP, etc.)
"How much growth is left in the music player biz? Once everybody who needs or wants one, has one, I don't see the introduction of a new player being that big a deal."
Five years ago, the above text wouldn't be too far-fetched...
The 360 uses, IIRC 48 unified shaders. The PS3 doesn't have _any_ unified shaders. Although it has (again IIRC) more than the 360, it can't use them as efficiently (because their not unified, some of them are usually sitting idle.)
1) If he had just submitted a report to the TSA, it would get lost in the bureaucratic hell that is the TSA (or more likely, it would just be ignored, since fixing it would cost money and time.)
2) The media coverage that the site, and subsequent harassment that he has received has raised awareness far more than a report to the TSA or a blog entry ever would.
By bringing up the issue in a very public way, he has made many, many people very aware of the "security theatre" that the TSA is. The fact that he is drawing so much fire from the TSA also helps demonstrate exactly how poorly suited they are to deal with the flaws in their system -- it's easier to silence those who point out the problem than it is to actually purchase real clothes for the emperor.
Added irony: the CAPTCHA for my post is "barefoot".
According to the TSA bueracrats who I e-mailed about this, it stands for "Self Selected Secondary Screening".... which is bullshit, since it's not "self selected". Then again, this is the TSA we're talking about, so I'm not surprised that I wasn't able to find out what it means.
And now there are rumors that Apple will be copying Tablet PC
Right. Because they've never built a device like that before The MessagePad 2000 and 2100 were, for all intents and purposes, Tablet PCs.
Microsoft introduced the "squiggly" line for on-the-fly spell check.
+5 Funny
Microsoft introduced the "floating pallette" of Mac Office.
Wrong -- prior art. Copland (and Aaron, if you want a product that was actually released) featured modals long before Office's floating palette. Come to think of it, so did Photoshop.
Linux and Mac still have yet to have anything to rival it.
Ok... so you're only half-wrong here. Apple had it in the mid 90's as OpenDoc (and in the very very early 90s as Pulbish & Subscribe). Both sucked. Linux doesn't have it (at least not in a common, standard form) because we watched MS and Apple fail.
They have many innovations in Office 2007.
Once you discard the XML-like (but not really XML -- a bastardised version) document format, the only "innovation" I can find is the ribbon -- which is so innovative, it breaks damn near every UI guidline that MS published.
I'm sure that they have innovated some things, just not most of the things you listed.
4) Pricing. Apple doesn't really charge a fixed price for OS X, they can price-gouge you based on what hardware you intend to run it on. If they had to offer one price that'd run on anything from Mac mini-class to Mac Pro-class machines, they couldn't.
What are you talking about? Every version of Mac OS X has been available for purchase for $129. (Except 10.1) And they do run on "anything from Mac mini-cass to Mac Pro-class machines."
Point releases should NOT break api compatibility
And in the couple years I've been coding almost exclusively for OS X, they haven't.
Oh sure... they've nuked some of the deprecated ones (Apple keeps deprecated APIs for a little over two years, or one major release of the OS, for the most part), and they've changed some of the undocumented ones. But no developers should depend on undocumented APIs, and if you're given a warning two years in advance, you should have time to fix your dependence on deprecated APIs.
MSFT enjoyed a 7% increase in revenue last quarter alone, while AAPL's growth has been in the iPod area. There are no similarities between AAPL and MSFT in that front.
You probably didn't mean to phrase it that way, but you're totally right. Note the lack of Zune rumour sites, and general lack of enthusiasm over the Zune when compared to the iPod.
Now, as for the marketshare aregument: you're also right. Apple's marketshare has fallen since 1994/5. It has also improved since 1997/8. Moving past statistics, one can look at the Wall Street perception of Apple. In 1996-7 Wall Street saw Apple in a death spiral. Their market share was swirling down the toilet, they were losing ground in the education and enterprise sectors, and Windows 95/98 was generating a much bigger buzz than anything Apple was producing. Then Apple turned around: they got Jobs back at the helm, released a product that created a media sensation (iMac -- for examples, look at Newsweek's and Time's coverage of it) and started inching away from the edge of a financial cliff. Following that with Mac OS X, and the iPod, Wall Streets prediction of Apple's future is pretty damn bright.
You mention Microsoft. I say don't bother. They don't really compete. Apple makes personal computers and iPods. Microsoft makes an operating system and a game console (and soon another iPod "killer"). With the exception of the forthcoming Zune, there's not really much competition between the two. People cite Mac OS X as competing against Windows -- often referencing Vista -- but it's not really. Mac OS X only runs on Macs (officially.) Windows runs on commodity hardware. Apple makes Mac OS X to bundle with their hardware. Microsoft makes Windows because it's the cornerstone of their business. There's far less competition than people think.
Or we can just be total assholes when pointing out things, and do it in a sarcastic, yet factually-incorrect way.
Terminal.app supports ANSI color just fine. The checkbox to enable/disable this is under "Window Settings", under the "Color" menu item.
Replace folder? I can't speak to that one -- I've never seen a need for it, but I understand that one might.
The Finder's Samba support is sub-par. You're dead on there.
A lot of users have no problem with the one theme idea -- for comparison look at how many Windows users use themes provided with Windows (either Luna or Classic). Those that are computer-savvy enough to know about theming, etc, will probably use one of the many methods to change their theme on Mac OS X.
I didn't really get your point about the "desktop applications" and categories. Do you mean the icons in the Dock? The choice of software bundled with the OS? You don't seem to rant about anything specific.
I haven't rebooted my Mac in over two weeks. I've installed tons of stuff, including the Developer Tools since then. As for the XML files... well... they'e not easy for the average user to edit, but they certainly are documented.
The "open source applications are unstable" claim is kinda silly. I've used tons of applications, open source and not, on Mac OS X, and I don't notice any difference in stability. I have used several open source apps which have significant stability problems, but I've also used stable open source apps. Same goes for commercial software.
SWT has its quirks on Mac OS X -- it's true. Apple does ship a JRE that's better integrated with the UI. As a result, some things are different. Then again, they are on Windows. And Linux. And Solaris. And BSD.... etc. etc. etc. Java's not 100% cross-platform, at least not when it comes to SWT. If SWT worked perfectly the same on everything but OS X, I'd be pissed at Apple. It doesn't, and I'm fine with the Aquafied look of SWT apps.
Disclaimer: My experience with Vista has been limited to pre-RC1 and RC1, but both times, making a sincere effort to use them as both my dev OS and my primary OS.
Various kernel improvements in scheduling
Vista does seem to handle high-load situations better than XP (which quite frankly, sucked at dealing with them.)
Completely new TCP/IP stack
Both a plus and a minus -- on the plus side, yes it is fast. On the minus side, what are the bets that a completely new TCP/IP stack is free of security-holes, especially given that this isn't the OpenBSD team we're talking about...
Composited desktop / Aero prettiness
Compositing and hardware-accelerated windows are nice. It's a little on the graphics heavy side though, and does require a beefy video card for the really shiny bits to be usable. That said, I personally (although I expect that others feel differently) find Aero to be so-so... it's got several cool effects, but I actually ended up turning it off when I got sick of it. To each his own, I guess...
Resolution/DPI independence
Except not really. While the frameworks/APIs are in place for this, and some of Vista is resolution independent, much of the OS is still very much bitmap-based. If you don't believe me, take a peek inside some of the shell DLLs. It is prettier, and high-res icons are being used in many places, but the res-independent stuff isn't used very much. (For anyone who thinks I'm an Apple fanboy.... OS X doesn't have res-independence either. Leopard does have it, but it's off by default, and is very very very alpha.)
Revamped security model (UAC, new system services model, etc.)
About time. The UAC stuff is nice, as are the sane default settings, but this isn't really a compelling reason to upgrade (since it's all stuff that a properly configured Win2K or XP box will do.)
IE 7+ (Protected Mode IE) - this will virtually eliminate malware via the browser
Ha ha ha ha ha.... IE Protected Mode is nice... but "virtually eliminate malware"? I think not. As long as the mshtml engine is used as part of the OS, it is still a risk. IE7 is an improvement from IE6, but is still outpaced by other browsers, IMHO.
Much better networking UI / auto network discovery
Better, but still a pain in the ass compared to OS X. This actually _is_ a good feature for people, at least if they're travelling, but not very computer-savvy.
New start menu really is a LOT better than XPs
I agree with half of that statement: it's new. Better is subjective... but it's basically just tries to get you to use the search field instead of the traditional "Programs" hierarchy. I guess that's easier, but I honestly don't like the OS guessing what I want to run. So yes, it's new... but from me it gets a solid "meh... so what?"
Far better Explorer interface
Amen. I like the new concepts seen in the Explorer interface. Some of them are really cool features. My only gripe, and the reason why I currently dislike explorer hasn't changed: from a UI consistancy standpoint, it's complete crap. It breaks it's own rules all the time -- stuff looks different depending on pretty much everything except for the phases of the moon. I know easy UIs have never been Microsoft's strong point, but Vista's Explorer is pretty darn inconsistent. Apple's actually made a screw-up like this too: the "Services" menu in the application-name menu. Each service is pretty cool, but the reasoning behind why they're there, and why they're enabled/disabled seems to be an arbitrary one (to the user.)
WAY better file operations dialogs
WAY better file operations in general
The dialogs are nicer. The operations themselves... well... I haven't really noticed that much of an improvement over XP, to be honest. No complaints though.
ReadyBoost
Works well... if you have a USB drive... and if you keep it plugged in...
I think Steve is happy that he's the one making the decisions. It's amazing how many times I see this sort of thing parroted, apparently without people realizing what effect this would have on Apple. Seriously, think about this for a second.
1) What is the primary problem with Windows stability? One word: drivers. There is no way that a company, even one with as many resources as MS, can support every possible config out there. Windows would be a hell of alot more stable if people didn't run it on so many crappy rigs. Unfortunately, they do, and MS gets the bad press for it. True, they contribute to the problem, but you'd have no idea how many times I've seen a BSOD induced by bad RAM or a shitty driver. You probably can guess how many people blame that on MS instead of their decision to buy third-rate hardware. If Apple released OS X for generic PC's, then this would undoubtedly be a problem. I do not doubt for a second, that many people here could build machines with hardware combos that work well with OS X. I also know that most average users won't build their own system, let alone pick components that will work perfectly with OS X.
2) Developers. Balmer wasn't lying when he made his "developers, developers" speech. They really are what makes a successful OS... well... successful. If OS X is released for generic x86 boxes, think about it from a developer's standpoint. Suddenly, developers have two PC markets to target. Those with Windows, and those with OS X. Now, as much fun as it imagine that the majority of users will dump Windows (and all their applications, etc.) and flock to run OS X and OS X only, it is very much a dream. Instead, many people will dual-boot OS X and Windows. Now, switch back to developer perspective for a minute... You know that most OS X PC users have Windows anyways, therefore, does it make sense to make a special OS X PC version of your software? No. Instead, you drop _all_ OS X support, and tell the users to simply boot into Windows when they want to use your software. Suddenly, as most dev. houses follow this trend, we see the majority of application support for OS X just shrivel up and die. Not good. For a practical example of this, witness OS/2's integration with Windows 3.1 and the effect it had on developers.
3) Hardware. Apple is a hardware company. Repeat that: Apple is a hardware company. They happen to know how to make great software, and, as a result have gained recognition for it's ease of use. However, despite their software-making abilities, hardware makes up over 80% of their revenues. What's in that other 20%? iTunes Music Store sales, boxed copies of OS X, etc. In short, without hardware (and I mean actual computers and iPods), Apple can't survive. Period. As optimistic as it is to assume that OS X PC could take on MS well enough to replace hardware as a revenue stream, it is just not going to happen. Also, if anyone could buy and install OS X on a commodity PC, why would they buy the shiny boxes for 10-20% more?
Then, should you happen to do this for someone who knows what an AAC file is, watch as you are laughed down.
What you mean is:
1) Go to iTunes Music Store
2) Buy a protected AAC file from the store
3) etc...
AAC is not a proprietary file format, nor is it DRM-encumbered by default. The iTunes Music Store (NOT iTunes... it won't DRM tracks that you rip) uses a DRM wrapper around an AAC file... but these tracks aren't standard AAC files.
Actually, it's not mandatory. The startup sound obeys the volume settings that the computer had before it shut down, at least it does on both my MacBook and my iBook.
I know that it's in vogue to criticize Apple now, and I know that Apple is high profile, but their QC issues are no different than they've usually been. The first-gen products have a higher lemon rate.
Woohoo.
Anyone remember the first-gen TiBooks, where the antenna design sucked so much that getting beyond 50 feet of Airport range was a miracle? Or the cubes with the power button that was so sensitive it would sometimes trigger itself? Or the cube's cracking acryllic? What about the PB 5200's Lion battey?
Moral of the story: first-gen products have high failure rates. Courtesy of the architecture switch, most of Apple's product line is first-gen. Therefore, much of Apple's product line has a higher than normal failure rate. Apple's not suffering, they're not dying, and they haven't decided that "Hey, why don't we take our reputation for quality, and flush it down the toilet? Let's shaft all our customers just because!" To Dvorak, and indeed pundits all around the world (like the author of TFA, for example) I have this message: grow the fuck up.
If only it was that way in the US (or at least where I am). I seriously have not seen a single SACD in any of the major stores. I have seen them in a local high-end audio store, but they were expensive, like $40 each, and of a rather limited selection. This was a year or so ago, so I dunno what prices are now.
Here, boys and girls are the two reasons why this system is doomed (and why it's obvious that Warner hasn't figured out how the consumer and the pirate think/work)
1)the main audio mix is to be protected by the same software that already protects the content on normal DVDs
So much for stopping piracy.
2)The new discs would not play on normal CD players, meaning consumers could not simply pop their new discs into their car stereos or other players. And users would not be able to copy the main audio mix onto their computers
And there goes consumer interest as well.
If SACD taught us anything, it's that consumers don't want to re-buy their collection, or replace their favorite stereo just for a minor difference in quality. It's just not gonna happen. There may be a small uptake, but the majority of consumers will say "Doesn't work in my stuff? Well then why bother?"
Slashdot Mirror
Me too... or rather I'm surprised I'm not having more of a problem with this.
I switched from a 12" PowerBook to a MacBook, and I gotta say... I love it. I too thought the "crappy plastic keys" would bother me, but 1) I adapted to them after about 15 minutes of typing, 2) They're really comfortable, at least for me. and 3) The PowerBook's keys turned out to be plastic too (don't believe me? Pry one up and look at the underside.
The glossy screen really isn't too bad, although I guess it can be annoying at times. For the most part though, I don't notice it unless I happen to have a very bright light shining directly at the screen from behind me. It certainly helps the movie experience, and colours look far less "washed out" than they did on the PowerBook. That, and the screen seems to be about 1000x brighter, which is a nice plus.
Also, the MacBook is wider than a PowerBook/iBook, but it's a bit shorter. If you travel on airplanes, you'll find this to be A Good Thing (tm).
The severity of the virus, the spread of the virus, and the stupidity of the users necessary for the the first two.
The few viruses (they were actually non self-replicating trojans -- most were modified versions of Opener) that affected people on rumour forums required people to give the trojan/script admin (sudo) privileges. I'm sorry, but no matter what OS you're on, giving a virus sudo means game over.
This is one of those rumours (especially the OSXon-a-phone part) where I look at the rumour-sayer and repeat: "Are you retarded?"
Seriously -- there are a variety of technical reasons why Apple will never try and embed OS X in a phone... I would hope that anyone reading this comment can guess why. If you need a hint, think of why the iPod doesn't do OS X (something about overkill, the bad example of Windows XP, etc.)
"How much growth is left in the music player biz? Once everybody who needs or wants one, has one, I don't see the introduction of a new player being that big a deal."
Five years ago, the above text wouldn't be too far-fetched...
Yeah, but the PS3 GPU isn't all that hot.
The 360 uses, IIRC 48 unified shaders. The PS3 doesn't have _any_ unified shaders. Although it has (again IIRC) more than the 360, it can't use them as efficiently (because their not unified, some of them are usually sitting idle.)
Fair enough. I'm sure you also support profiling against other religions, other nationalities, and other political groups.
No? Oh.
Racist.
I think the benefit is twofold:
1) If he had just submitted a report to the TSA, it would get lost in the bureaucratic hell that is the TSA (or more likely, it would just be ignored, since fixing it would cost money and time.)
2) The media coverage that the site, and subsequent harassment that he has received has raised awareness far more than a report to the TSA or a blog entry ever would.
By bringing up the issue in a very public way, he has made many, many people very aware of the "security theatre" that the TSA is. The fact that he is drawing so much fire from the TSA also helps demonstrate exactly how poorly suited they are to deal with the flaws in their system -- it's easier to silence those who point out the problem than it is to actually purchase real clothes for the emperor.
Added irony: the CAPTCHA for my post is "barefoot".
According to the TSA bueracrats who I e-mailed about this, it stands for "Self Selected Secondary Screening".... which is bullshit, since it's not "self selected". Then again, this is the TSA we're talking about, so I'm not surprised that I wasn't able to find out what it means.
And now there are rumors that Apple will be copying Tablet PC
Right. Because they've never built a device like that before The MessagePad 2000 and 2100 were, for all intents and purposes, Tablet PCs.
Microsoft introduced the "squiggly" line for on-the-fly spell check.
+5 Funny
Microsoft introduced the "floating pallette" of Mac Office.
Wrong -- prior art. Copland (and Aaron, if you want a product that was actually released) featured modals long before Office's floating palette. Come to think of it, so did Photoshop.
Linux and Mac still have yet to have anything to rival it.
Ok... so you're only half-wrong here. Apple had it in the mid 90's as OpenDoc (and in the very very early 90s as Pulbish & Subscribe). Both sucked. Linux doesn't have it (at least not in a common, standard form) because we watched MS and Apple fail.
They have many innovations in Office 2007.
Once you discard the XML-like (but not really XML -- a bastardised version) document format, the only "innovation" I can find is the ribbon -- which is so innovative, it breaks damn near every UI guidline that MS published.
I'm sure that they have innovated some things, just not most of the things you listed.
4) Pricing. Apple doesn't really charge a fixed price for OS X, they can price-gouge you based on what hardware you intend to run it on. If they had to offer one price that'd run on anything from Mac mini-class to Mac Pro-class machines, they couldn't.
What are you talking about? Every version of Mac OS X has been available for purchase for $129. (Except 10.1) And they do run on "anything from Mac mini-cass to Mac Pro-class machines."
Point releases should NOT break api compatibility And in the couple years I've been coding almost exclusively for OS X, they haven't.
Oh sure... they've nuked some of the deprecated ones (Apple keeps deprecated APIs for a little over two years, or one major release of the OS, for the most part), and they've changed some of the undocumented ones. But no developers should depend on undocumented APIs, and if you're given a warning two years in advance, you should have time to fix your dependence on deprecated APIs.
MSFT enjoyed a 7% increase in revenue last quarter alone, while AAPL's growth has been in the iPod area. There are no similarities between AAPL and MSFT in that front.
You probably didn't mean to phrase it that way, but you're totally right. Note the lack of Zune rumour sites, and general lack of enthusiasm over the Zune when compared to the iPod.
Now, as for the marketshare aregument: you're also right. Apple's marketshare has fallen since 1994/5. It has also improved since 1997/8. Moving past statistics, one can look at the Wall Street perception of Apple. In 1996-7 Wall Street saw Apple in a death spiral. Their market share was swirling down the toilet, they were losing ground in the education and enterprise sectors, and Windows 95/98 was generating a much bigger buzz than anything Apple was producing. Then Apple turned around: they got Jobs back at the helm, released a product that created a media sensation (iMac -- for examples, look at Newsweek's and Time's coverage of it) and started inching away from the edge of a financial cliff. Following that with Mac OS X, and the iPod, Wall Streets prediction of Apple's future is pretty damn bright.
You mention Microsoft. I say don't bother. They don't really compete. Apple makes personal computers and iPods. Microsoft makes an operating system and a game console (and soon another iPod "killer"). With the exception of the forthcoming Zune, there's not really much competition between the two. People cite Mac OS X as competing against Windows -- often referencing Vista -- but it's not really. Mac OS X only runs on Macs (officially.) Windows runs on commodity hardware. Apple makes Mac OS X to bundle with their hardware. Microsoft makes Windows because it's the cornerstone of their business. There's far less competition than people think.
Or we can just be total assholes when pointing out things, and do it in a sarcastic, yet factually-incorrect way.
Terminal.app supports ANSI color just fine. The checkbox to enable/disable this is under "Window Settings", under the "Color" menu item.
Replace folder? I can't speak to that one -- I've never seen a need for it, but I understand that one might.
The Finder's Samba support is sub-par. You're dead on there.
A lot of users have no problem with the one theme idea -- for comparison look at how many Windows users use themes provided with Windows (either Luna or Classic). Those that are computer-savvy enough to know about theming, etc, will probably use one of the many methods to change their theme on Mac OS X.
I didn't really get your point about the "desktop applications" and categories. Do you mean the icons in the Dock? The choice of software bundled with the OS? You don't seem to rant about anything specific.
I haven't rebooted my Mac in over two weeks. I've installed tons of stuff, including the Developer Tools since then. As for the XML files... well... they'e not easy for the average user to edit, but they certainly are documented.
The "open source applications are unstable" claim is kinda silly. I've used tons of applications, open source and not, on Mac OS X, and I don't notice any difference in stability. I have used several open source apps which have significant stability problems, but I've also used stable open source apps. Same goes for commercial software.
SWT has its quirks on Mac OS X -- it's true. Apple does ship a JRE that's better integrated with the UI. As a result, some things are different. Then again, they are on Windows. And Linux. And Solaris. And BSD.... etc. etc. etc. Java's not 100% cross-platform, at least not when it comes to SWT. If SWT worked perfectly the same on everything but OS X, I'd be pissed at Apple. It doesn't, and I'm fine with the Aquafied look of SWT apps.
But why look at where responsibility lies when you can be trendy and bash Apple? After all, bashing big media is soooo 90's
Disclaimer: My experience with Vista has been limited to pre-RC1 and RC1, but both times, making a sincere effort to use them as both my dev OS and my primary OS.
Various kernel improvements in scheduling
Vista does seem to handle high-load situations better than XP (which quite frankly, sucked at dealing with them.)
Completely new TCP/IP stack
Both a plus and a minus -- on the plus side, yes it is fast. On the minus side, what are the bets that a completely new TCP/IP stack is free of security-holes, especially given that this isn't the OpenBSD team we're talking about...
Composited desktop / Aero prettiness
Compositing and hardware-accelerated windows are nice. It's a little on the graphics heavy side though, and does require a beefy video card for the really shiny bits to be usable. That said, I personally (although I expect that others feel differently) find Aero to be so-so... it's got several cool effects, but I actually ended up turning it off when I got sick of it. To each his own, I guess...
Resolution/DPI independence
Except not really. While the frameworks/APIs are in place for this, and some of Vista is resolution independent, much of the OS is still very much bitmap-based. If you don't believe me, take a peek inside some of the shell DLLs. It is prettier, and high-res icons are being used in many places, but the res-independent stuff isn't used very much. (For anyone who thinks I'm an Apple fanboy.... OS X doesn't have res-independence either. Leopard does have it, but it's off by default, and is very very very alpha.)
Revamped security model (UAC, new system services model, etc.)
About time. The UAC stuff is nice, as are the sane default settings, but this isn't really a compelling reason to upgrade (since it's all stuff that a properly configured Win2K or XP box will do.)
IE 7+ (Protected Mode IE) - this will virtually eliminate malware via the browser
Ha ha ha ha ha.... IE Protected Mode is nice... but "virtually eliminate malware"? I think not. As long as the mshtml engine is used as part of the OS, it is still a risk. IE7 is an improvement from IE6, but is still outpaced by other browsers, IMHO.
Much better networking UI / auto network discovery
Better, but still a pain in the ass compared to OS X. This actually _is_ a good feature for people, at least if they're travelling, but not very computer-savvy.
New start menu really is a LOT better than XPs
I agree with half of that statement: it's new. Better is subjective... but it's basically just tries to get you to use the search field instead of the traditional "Programs" hierarchy. I guess that's easier, but I honestly don't like the OS guessing what I want to run. So yes, it's new... but from me it gets a solid "meh... so what?"
Far better Explorer interface
Amen. I like the new concepts seen in the Explorer interface. Some of them are really cool features. My only gripe, and the reason why I currently dislike explorer hasn't changed: from a UI consistancy standpoint, it's complete crap. It breaks it's own rules all the time -- stuff looks different depending on pretty much everything except for the phases of the moon. I know easy UIs have never been Microsoft's strong point, but Vista's Explorer is pretty darn inconsistent. Apple's actually made a screw-up like this too: the "Services" menu in the application-name menu. Each service is pretty cool, but the reasoning behind why they're there, and why they're enabled/disabled seems to be an arbitrary one (to the user.)
WAY better file operations dialogs
WAY better file operations in general
The dialogs are nicer. The operations themselves... well... I haven't really noticed that much of an improvement over XP, to be honest. No complaints though.
ReadyBoost
Works well... if you have a USB drive... and if you keep it plugged in...
Or are they using lower-spec CPUs and overclocking them all? They are exceptionally stable for Intel, after all.
If the MacBook Pro is any indication, it's actually the reverse.... i.e. round up to the closest CPU, then underclock it.
I think Steve is happy that he's the one making the decisions. It's amazing how many times I see this sort of thing parroted, apparently without people realizing what effect this would have on Apple. Seriously, think about this for a second.
1) What is the primary problem with Windows stability? One word: drivers. There is no way that a company, even one with as many resources as MS, can support every possible config out there. Windows would be a hell of alot more stable if people didn't run it on so many crappy rigs. Unfortunately, they do, and MS gets the bad press for it. True, they contribute to the problem, but you'd have no idea how many times I've seen a BSOD induced by bad RAM or a shitty driver. You probably can guess how many people blame that on MS instead of their decision to buy third-rate hardware. If Apple released OS X for generic PC's, then this would undoubtedly be a problem. I do not doubt for a second, that many people here could build machines with hardware combos that work well with OS X. I also know that most average users won't build their own system, let alone pick components that will work perfectly with OS X.
2) Developers. Balmer wasn't lying when he made his "developers, developers" speech. They really are what makes a successful OS... well... successful. If OS X is released for generic x86 boxes, think about it from a developer's standpoint. Suddenly, developers have two PC markets to target. Those with Windows, and those with OS X. Now, as much fun as it imagine that the majority of users will dump Windows (and all their applications, etc.) and flock to run OS X and OS X only, it is very much a dream. Instead, many people will dual-boot OS X and Windows. Now, switch back to developer perspective for a minute... You know that most OS X PC users have Windows anyways, therefore, does it make sense to make a special OS X PC version of your software? No. Instead, you drop _all_ OS X support, and tell the users to simply boot into Windows when they want to use your software. Suddenly, as most dev. houses follow this trend, we see the majority of application support for OS X just shrivel up and die. Not good. For a practical example of this, witness OS/2's integration with Windows 3.1 and the effect it had on developers.
3) Hardware. Apple is a hardware company. Repeat that: Apple is a hardware company. They happen to know how to make great software, and, as a result have gained recognition for it's ease of use. However, despite their software-making abilities, hardware makes up over 80% of their revenues. What's in that other 20%? iTunes Music Store sales, boxed copies of OS X, etc. In short, without hardware (and I mean actual computers and iPods), Apple can't survive. Period. As optimistic as it is to assume that OS X PC could take on MS well enough to replace hardware as a revenue stream, it is just not going to happen. Also, if anyone could buy and install OS X on a commodity PC, why would they buy the shiny boxes for 10-20% more?
Then, should you happen to do this for someone who knows what an AAC file is, watch as you are laughed down.
What you mean is:
1) Go to iTunes Music Store
2) Buy a protected AAC file from the store
3) etc...
AAC is not a proprietary file format, nor is it DRM-encumbered by default. The iTunes Music Store (NOT iTunes... it won't DRM tracks that you rip) uses a DRM wrapper around an AAC file... but these tracks aren't standard AAC files.
Actually, it's not mandatory. The startup sound obeys the volume settings that the computer had before it shut down, at least it does on both my MacBook and my iBook.
Mac OS X comes with Disk Utility. Using that, and Automator, you can set up a script to image your drive to a bootable drive image every night.
Problem solved.
Why are you not in politics? That was by far one of the clearest, most logical, and best thought out essays that I have ever read.
Bravo.
Here's my experience with my MacBook...
I bought it.
It works.
I know that it's in vogue to criticize Apple now, and I know that Apple is high profile, but their QC issues are no different than they've usually been. The first-gen products have a higher lemon rate.
Woohoo.
Anyone remember the first-gen TiBooks, where the antenna design sucked so much that getting beyond 50 feet of Airport range was a miracle? Or the cubes with the power button that was so sensitive it would sometimes trigger itself? Or the cube's cracking acryllic? What about the PB 5200's Lion battey?
Moral of the story: first-gen products have high failure rates. Courtesy of the architecture switch, most of Apple's product line is first-gen. Therefore, much of Apple's product line has a higher than normal failure rate. Apple's not suffering, they're not dying, and they haven't decided that "Hey, why don't we take our reputation for quality, and flush it down the toilet? Let's shaft all our customers just because!" To Dvorak, and indeed pundits all around the world (like the author of TFA, for example) I have this message: grow the fuck up.
You mean GNUStep, right?
If only it was that way in the US (or at least where I am). I seriously have not seen a single SACD in any of the major stores. I have seen them in a local high-end audio store, but they were expensive, like $40 each, and of a rather limited selection. This was a year or so ago, so I dunno what prices are now.
Here, boys and girls are the two reasons why this system is doomed (and why it's obvious that Warner hasn't figured out how the consumer and the pirate think/work)
1) the main audio mix is to be protected by the same software that already protects the content on normal DVDs
So much for stopping piracy.
2) The new discs would not play on normal CD players, meaning consumers could not simply pop their new discs into their car stereos or other players. And users would not be able to copy the main audio mix onto their computers
And there goes consumer interest as well.
If SACD taught us anything, it's that consumers don't want to re-buy their collection, or replace their favorite stereo just for a minor difference in quality. It's just not gonna happen. There may be a small uptake, but the majority of consumers will say "Doesn't work in my stuff? Well then why bother?"