UrbanBard's Profile

  • Oct 12, 2007
  • 17
  • 1

Latest comments made by: UrbanBard

  • There seems to be much confusion, hyperbole and speculation about the recent update to the iPhone. Consequently, I've noticed a series of fallacies going around about the iPod and the iPhone that appear in this article. There are questions that Apple has not cleared up, so people have put the worse spin possible on them. Future events may surprise people, including the author. The greatest fallacy I've noticed is a Post Hoc fallacy regarding the recent update to 1.1.1. The idea here is that because some iPhones were rendered inoperable (bricked) after the update that this can only mean that the update itself was responsible. Worse yet, paranoia crept in by people saying that Apple must have known the effects of the update, so the bricking was premeditated. I heard people comparing Steve Jobs to Adolf Hitler, or worst yet-- George Bush. Some of the hype has diminished in the last several weeks so we know what really happened. Every update has a few people innocently effected; Apple has fixed those under warranty. Ir appears that people who just added Third Party applications sometimes had them over written, but their phones still worked. It is still unclear whether Apple did so punitively or innocently. If Apple did not know the applications were there because they didn't check and assumed that the space was available then the applications would naturally be overwritten. Apple may legitimately be concerned about Third Party applications, because in order to install them the hackers had to exploit a bug in the operating system software. Apple fixed that bug in update 1.1.1, so that applications can no longer be installed that way. It appears that only those people who unlocked their iPhones from AT&T were bricked. There were several ways of doing that, but it appears now that only those who used the AnySIM application got bricked. Some of the people who are working to hack the 1.1.1 update say that the AnySIM application contained bad code that led to the bricking. Thus, Apple was not the direct cause of the malfunction, while AnySIM was. So, any paranoia about Apple was misplaced. The hackers on the 1.1.1 update have since released a method to return a bricked iPhones to the 1.0.2 firmware, so the bricked iPhones will now work. From there, you can update to 1.1.1 and then reload your apps and unlock your iPhone from AT&T. But, the hackers accept no responsibility for you choosing to do this and warn you not to update to 1.1.2 until it has been checked out. The author makes several assumptions from this episode that are probably fallacious. The first is that Apple intends to permanently keep Third Party applications off the iPhone. We really don't know if this is a temporary or permanent condition. I've maintained that it is probably temporary. My understanding is that the iPhone OS is unfinished. It's good enough for a phone, but it is lacking the necessary security to be safe to run as a handheld computer. All applications run at "root" level which is a massive security breach that could let in virus' and malware. Apple has just released a web page of web applications for the iPhone. When Apple has released its newest operating system upgrade (Mac OSX 10.5) this month, then they can reassign programmers to fix the iPhone's security. Then a system can be developed to safely run Third Party applications. It makes sense for Apple to allow this under controlled conditions. Apple should want to manage this so that good, safe, useful apps can be sold through the iTunes Music Store. It isn't the small amount of money that Apple will make on this, Apple makes next to no money on the iTMS. It's that the more useful the iPhone is to people, the more of them that will be sold. The author assumes that the new Zune player will have an advantage in that Third party application can be run on it. But, we do not know Apple's intentions regarding Third Party apps in the future and it is unwise to assume that Apple won't open up the iPhone when it is safe to do so.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Oct 12, 2007 Posts: 17
    Why The Zune Will Outdo The iPod
  • It looks like somebody missed their nappy time. LOL
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Oct 10, 2007 Posts: 17
    Don't Give Me More Speed, Give Me Efficiency
  • The big problem with lists like this is that they miss the subtleties-- the underlying realities. The Mac is a consumer, not an enterprise, computer; Apple does not care much about the Enterprise market or market share. Apple intentionally does not compete in some markets, like the low end markets where there is no money. And too, Apple is digging itself out of a big Public Relations hole caused by mismanagement in the early to middle 90's, along with the effects of a FUD campaign created by IBM and carried forward by Microsoft. Also, there are big differences in the marketing plans between Wintel and Apple which make it difficult to compare competing systems. Thus, Apple is always low balled by being compared to inferior computers. Hence, there are huge segments of the computer market which have a bias against Apple based on ignorance, different expectations and perceptions along with an unwillingness to accept the truth that the Mac OS is a better operating system than Windows. But, enough about that. That is about the past. So long as Apple's sales are growing at 30% per annum, many of those perceptions and expectations will change. The FUD no longer works. Apple is no longer beleaguered, or liable to go out of business soon, when it's profits are a half again more than Dell's and two thirds of Hewlett Packard's. Thus, the two leading computer makers may sell 10.7 times as many computers as Apple but between the two of them they make only a little more than twice as much profit. Clearly, Apple is doing something right or Wintel is screwing up badly. The computer market place is changing. Wintel got its huge market share gains by delivering the lowest possible hardware price combined with a standard Operating System mostly to the Enterprise market. Meanwhile, Apple has pushed the computing envelop. Vista is an attempt by Microsoft to match the appearance of Apple's Mac OSX 10.3 Panther and failing. Vista does not have the underlying modern foundations of Mac OSX which is why it requires more expensive hardware to run its full Areo graphical system. Of course, Wintel tries to hide the higher cost of trying to compete head-to-head with the Mac. But, people are catching on. Computers started among big companies, then spread to the hobbyist tinkerers and finally to the consumers. The world wide commercial markets who comprise Microsoft's mainstay is practically saturated; There is only 5% growth per annum. The Consumer market is the only market segment that shows any new growth. Therefore, Apple has chosen to concentrate where its advantages of panache, flexibility, ease-of-use, compatibility and power shine. The Mac also tends to have twice as long a useful life than a PC. This is why the Total Cost of Ownership of even a cheap PC is two to three times higher than a Mac. Even the Enterprise and Government markets have refused to upgrade to Vista. A substantial portion of the new computers sold with Vista have been reloaded with Windows XP. Microsoft has dug itself a huge technological hole which has not yet turned into a Public Relations fiasco, but it will. Apple keeps delivering advancements. Many of the changes in Mac OSX 10.5 Leopard are under the hood. They are API's that will allow developers to design applications in less time at a lower cost. Then, add in the fact that Apple will make BootCamp a part of Leopard so that you can run all your Windows software if you must. Apple is on a roll. It is advancing both in sales and market share. Microsoft's low end computers that are currently used as point of sale devises and front end for mainframes or the Web will be replaced by embedded Linux machines in five years while Apple nibbles away at Microsoft's highly profitable Consumer market. Perception is everything now. Microsoft is desperately holding onto its perception of being a monopoly. Once Microsoft starts to slide, people will start to jump ship. Many will wind up in Linux and Apple computers. They will wonder why it took them so long to jump. But, that will be then, not yet.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Oct 03, 2007 Posts: 17
    8 Reasons Windows Users Don’t Switch
  • You are using some semantically loaded words here: "closed ecosystem of products" & "this monopolistic-like role Apple is employing" when you really mean the word proprietary. Are Apple's competitors less proprietary than Apple? No, they have merely accepted a different business plan than Apple and AT&T is initiating. Apple is used to upsetting customary practice. Many of Apple's customers appreciate that Apple does this. Most of the criticism of the iPhone are recycled anti-iPod arguments and hence are worthless. You substitute the phrase "creating an image of greed" for acting in one's self interests. Aren't the current phone manufacturers acting in their self interest? Yes. The point is whether Apple's new business plan benefit's the consumer's self interests. Given the response to the iPhone, I suspect that Apple has. Most mobile phone users dislike their phones and their service providers. If Apple and AT&T can change that perception; then they will gain huge sales. What's wrong with that? You use "Apple’s seemingly outrageous proposal" when you mean that Apple is choosing to change common business practice in mobile phones. Currently, mobile phone are subsidized by the carriers. Apple is not getting a subsidy for the iPhone; it is charging full price. This means that AT&T can charge less for the monthly service. This is paradigm shiting behavior. Apple does this; it upset other businesses apple carts. Accept it, It's called competition. It is a good thing, in the main, when it offers the consumers more choice. Writers often make a big deal about the iPhone being locked to AT&T when most mobile phones are sold that way. Verizon uses a different hardware system; Apple could not create a system that could be used on both. Only T-mobile uses GSM in the US. Nor is it a problem that Apple may be geting part of the monthy service fee. That means that Apple can provide regular software upgrades as part of the monthly service.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Jul 20, 2007 Posts: 17
    Why Apple Does Not Want the iPhone Unlocked and What It Means for Us
  • Been there, done that, Hadley, it didn't work. Apple tried the clone business and got its ass handed to it. Apple cannot afford to adopt Microsoft's business plan. We Mac Users cannot afford to live without Apple; who else will drive the next computer paradigm shift? You are stuck in the past, Hadley. We need to see where the computer market is going. It is uncertain that Microsoft will survive the next paradigm shift. Don't confuse big, powerful and rich with good; MS is a dinosaur. Microsoft isn't on top because of a conscious decision or skill. It lucked into a situation and exploited it well. But is MS in a position to take advantage of the next big changes? No, it is still five years behind Apple. Vista is better than XP, but it isn't really a modern, modular Operating System. It is Windows server 2003 with a pretty face. What is driving the next paradigm shift is hardware. What happens when the computer-on-a-chip gets under ten bucks? Every peripheral will become a stand alone device. No manufacturer will want to pay the Microsoft tax to run that keyboard, mouse, drawing tablet, headset and monitor, so Unix or linux will run them. Apple will, most likely, design that software out of self defense and donate it to open source. And Apple will continue to provide most flexible, durable and easiest to use hardware. You would think that with the computer fragmenting into stand-alone devices, that this would make the OS less important, not more. But here, we must trust to Microsoft to do a half-assed job. Naturally, MS will be many years behind the curve, but will still get it wrong in user friendliness. Apple is doing its best to stay ahead of that fragmentation with the Apple TV and the iPhone. There will be many other Apple branded stand alone devices. Meanwhile, most of Front ends for mainframes (ordering devices, cash registers, etc) which comprises a third of MS's market share will be lost to Linux stand alone devices. Apple wants the most profitable quarter of the consumer electronics market. It will chip away at the server and the enterprise markets, but there isn't enough money in most computer sales, anymore. The Enterprise and Government markets demand a special institutional sales force and 24/7 repair service that it doesn't pay Apple enough to provide. Or they want advanced planning information that Apple does not want to publish because it ruins Steve's "just one more thing" moments. Apple's secrecy makes good copy worth hundreds of millions of dollars. There is always a market for quality equipment at a reasonable price. The reason that Apple is selling its hardware at much higher percentage of sales than Wintel now, is that the old IBM & MS FUD about Apple has faded. It will continue to fade and Apple's market share will rise, but the quality must be there to substantiate Apple's quality and longevity. Both Dell and HP have cut their prices to the bone and are sacrificing quality. That practice must eventually catch up with them, because it is sacrifices the future for the present. In time. the future will arrive. MS and the Wintel manufacturers are not preparing for that day. I believe Apple is. Apple will drive the bus leaving Wintel behind. But only, if Apple has a bus-- that is, hardware.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Jun 01, 2007 Posts: 17
    Memo to Steve Jobs: 7 Reasons to Decouple OS X from Apple Hardware Now
  • I think many people miss the point about operating systems; they shouldn't be in the foreground. You shouldn't have to think about them, because they just work. Microsoft Windows is always in your face like a needy kid, yelling, "Look at me. Look at me." The Mac isn't like that. The Mac is more like an ever-present servant who keeps out of your sight, except when you need to turn to him for a task. And he is right there. The smarter that servant is, the more likely he has already fetched what you are about to ask for. Forget about the computing cycles necessary to achieve this; most of the time the processor is at idle, anyway. I think of where the hardware is going and Apple seems a better solution than either MS or the web applications. Do you remember when all we had were dumb terminals hooked to a mainframe? Now, we have dumb accessories hooked to our PC's. What happens when we have smart accessories? That is, when the accessories are all computers that talk to each other and have specialized functions? That you can set up rules that conform to how you like to do things, rather than how the machine wants them. That we humans become the most expensive accessory of a computer, so that everything revolves about minimizing our downtime. We are likely to have many accessories spread out in our homes or offices. We will have many monitors that most of the time just look like photographs, windows or paintings. But when we want to see an output, it will be automatically routed to the closest monitor in the direction we are looking. If we pick up a drawing tablet, it records our input, decides if it is script, a command or a drawing based on our habit patterns, records and displays the result. The point, in the future, is for the computer to take care of the minutia while we get on with what we are good at. Ease-of-use should morph toward a condition where we can forget that we are dealing with a machine. Instead, we will have a thoughtful servant that is constantly anticipating our needs and supplying them at a moments notice. In short, the computer gets out of the way. Apple is more likely to supply such an operating system than Microsoft, Google or the open source community.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on May 18, 2007 Posts: 17
    The Coming Mac Renaissance
  • I disagree; the operating system becomes more important as the hardware layer becomes less. All these interactions need to proceed transparently. Microsoft constantly puts roadblocks in the path to ease-of-use. Apple does everything it can to end them. Will there be advantages of doing activities on the Web? Sure. But, will you do everything there? No way. This is, in a way, an thin client/ stand alone computer argument. Both systems have advantages, but both alone are not flexible to satisfy our needs. Some of our needs cannot be done remotely even at the fastest transmission rates (video creation, photoshop, etc) Much of the processing must be done locally. And we do not know what new features will become possible when the technology proceeds far enough-- virtual reality, perfect vocal commands, wearable computers, brain controlled computers, computers inside the brain, etc. I expect that increasingly the hardware will become identical as more of its features are fitted onto a single chip, but that makes the software interaction that much more important. I do not expect Microsoft or Google to get what the Computer User needs. The Computer User doesn't even know yet. But, Apple will still be pushing the computing envelop and the best user experience on the Web will still be on a Mac, even when all the hardware has seemed to disappear.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Sep 27, 2006 Posts: 17
    The Operating System Is Dead
  • What's your hurry? Apple has enough on its plate. It is likely to grow to between eight to ten percent of the American market by 2010 (and 5% of the world market) just from the current marketing plan. Why would we want Apple to grow too fast? Microsoft is in self-destruct mode with no change in sight. Computer hardware will continually improve, but there is no reason for people to buy Vista which is merely Windows XP SP3. It will take Microsoft ten years to match the current Mac OS, let alone Leopard 10.5 and the succeeding versions. Apple is vying for the consumer, SOHO and the education markets; it is here that Apple's virtues stand out. The most lucrative portion of the computer market is exactly where Apple is. Why would it want to fight the white box manufacturers who aren't even profitable? Word of mouth is the best advertising. Let the word of mouth take care of this. If Apple makes the best computing experience in the world, then eventually, the world will catch on. Do you remember when the Mac was considered incompatible, quirky and too expensive? And Apple was reputed to be going out of business? That was less than ten years ago. How times have changed. Ps. The installed base of Macs is higher than two percent world wide, but why worry about that?
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Jun 20, 2006 Posts: 17
    Fixing Mac Pricing
  • Apple's market share will increase. Why? Because the consumer market will continue to grow while the business market seems to be falling off. Apple is positioning itself as the best products in the consumer space. It won't compete on price, but its prices are comparable to Dell. Look at what Apple has done in the last five years. Back then, Apple was forever reputed to be going out of business, now it is more profitable than Dell. It was a niche market then, now it is creating its own markets-- the IPod, iTunes, etc. It was presumed incompatible with the PC world, now it runs devices better than on a PC. The main computer magazines hated the Mac, now they say that Apple makes the best computers on the market. Apple was considered an oddity, now it is way cool. The Intel transition cost Apple 0.1 percent of the market last year while the Computer market grew by 9 percent. But, some pundits had projected a much higher loss in market share-or even that Apple would be forced out of business. This loss is nothing to worry about. Apple will grow greatly once it get the Intel transition out of the way. There is still too much FUD circulating about the Mac. The recent rash of bogus stories about virus attacks, Macs not being as fast as Linux and Windows, Apple freezing the development of the open source portion of its operating system, etc. show this. Apple is slowly clearing away the roadblocks that have been placed in it's way. As it must, before it can take off. Apple has been turning out superior products in the MacBook, the MacPro and the MacMini. The next microprocessor upgrade to Core 2 duo will probably be announced in August and Leopard 10.5 will be out before the end of the year. This, for Apple, will be a good school and Christmas buying season. There are reasons why Apple's market share will increase. 1. It is turning out superior products at a reasonable costs. 2. It has a superior OS to Vista. 3. It is attracting new customers to the computing world through the iPod, rather than merely cannibalizing the PC market. 4. It is picking up people disgruntled with Wintel. 5. It will pick up people who need dual and triple booted systems. 6. It's reputation is slowly improving. 7. The ads will kick in after a year or two. 8. Apple is becoming way cool with the kids through the iPod. 9. It will become the best way for computer novices to get started. But even so, this will keep Apple's Market share in the teens. Apple will still be a niche, but it will be in the most profitable portion of the market. What will boost Apple's share above ten percent will be the coming transition to ubiquitous computing. Improvements in technology will reduce the costs so that entire computers will be on a single chip. Every device on a computer today will become stand-alone as it get its own computer and interfaces wirelessly with each other. The OS may seem less important, but this is where the consumer experience kicks in. Apple has the best computing experience and customer service. It has the most rapidly developing software. It is new and innovative when the rest of the PC market is stogy, user unfriendly and business oriented. Apple will grow the market mostly by adding people who never had a computer before and by adding non-technical people who are afraid of computers. These people are not part of the market now, but they comprise the majority of people in the world. Apple will drag them in and make computing fun.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Jun 08, 2006 Posts: 17
    Mac Market Share, No Prescription Needed
  • Ben, Windows will hang around because it has a very long tail. We talk about Microsoft Windows running on 90% of the computers in the world, but only a portion of that is in Windows XP-- between two to three years of sales. There are a few computers out there, even today, running Windows 95. The hardware wasn't good enough to upgrade, the software, now unsupported, still works fine and the need for the system isn't critical or used very often, so that it isn't worth replacing yet. Apple doesn't want that part of the market anymore than the low end. It has it's own long tail going back to a few Mac SE/30's running Mac os 9 although Apple as been more ruthless than Microsoft about declaring systems obsolete. MS hangs onto the legacy equipment, partly, because once someone leaves Windows they are unlikely to go back. MS's strategy is basically one of replacement. John Martellaro has a very interesting article as follows. http://www.macobserver.com/columns/hiddendimensions/2006/20060424.shtml John is more cautious in his speculations than I; he thinks the ramifications of Boot Camp will play out over the next four to five years. I'd say sooner. His reason is that Apple R&D has been lean and mean; that is, that Apple doesn't have the personnel to go head to head with Microsoft. He's right; Apple was lean and mean. But Apple has been laying on staff since the iPod became a success. It has been buying up real estate like crazy recently-- a 110 thousand sq. ft. office building near Cupertino, Offices to staff 700 customer service reps in Bangalore, India, 112 thousand sq. ft. server center in New Jersey, etc. At the Cupertino City Council the other day, Steve Jobs was asking for approval for a new 50 acre Campus about a mile away from its present headquarters to house 30 to 35 hundred employees in about four years. Steve said that the city of Cupertino has run out of space to house the some two thousand people that Apple has added. Regarding Scott's excellent post, Microsoft seems worse off than I expected. I expected them to be further along than that. Microsoft needs for the world to let it catch up, but Apple is on a roll. MS has two choices: go through development hell to make a modern OS or patch what it has in Win32 to hang onto market share. I'm betting on the latter. But, Apple won't cooperate with that. Mac OS X keeps getting better-- it is a moving target-- ever harder for MS to catch up with. Then, there are the hardware changes coming up. and increasing competition worldwide. I don't see Microsoft going out of business, but that it will be squeezed from both ends. Competition with the Linux desktop will strip away the low end while Apple chips way at the top. If MS keeps fifty percent of the market, MS will still be profitable. But If Apple captures the top 25% of the market, with its profit margins, it might have a higher market cap than MS. I don't see many practical differences between John Martellaro and Cringley's speculations. Running Windows XP programs inside Mac OS X should have a better user experience than running them in Vista. John's speculation is more of a stealth strategy; that is, it is less likely to alarm Microsoft since they are getting extra money from Apple users. Since Steve Jobs likes stealth moves and dramatic announcements, John's speculation seems the most reasonable. Especially since, Apple often likes to put the pieces into place and then announce great changes in an offhand manner.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Apr 24, 2006 Posts: 17
    Will Vista Be the Last Operating System Microsoft Produces?
  • ian, Apple doesn't make junk that you will be forced to throw away within a few years, nor does it make low end machines. Often, PC assemblers make stripped, loss leader, low quality computers that, when you add in the features that come as standard equipment on a Mac, cost more than the Mac. Then too, there is more to a computer that it's up-front cost. The total cost of ownership over the life of a computer cost a PC owner three times as much as a comparable Mac. That does not include the hassles of owning a PC, assuming that your time and worry is worth anything. You could say that you only need the features that come as standard equipment on a PC. And that Dell puts together a system that fits your criteria, such as being able to plug in a decent graphics card. And that Dell doesn't design its computers merely to conform to a check-list whipped up to induce you to buy. We disagree. But, we have different markets here. Apple does not cater to tinkerers. It caters to people who need to get work done and can't afford the hours of maintaining a machine. The point is that, from our perspective of over-all cost, that a Dell costs more. You are free to disagree. May I remind you that Aopen just offered for sale a knock-off of the Mac Mini; it sells for a hundred dollars more than a Mini. Imagine that.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Apr 23, 2006 Posts: 17
    Will Vista Be the Last Operating System Microsoft Produces?
  • Hi davidwb, I think the place where poiuytrewq goes wrong is in thinking that because Microsoft is riding high today, that it always will be. He misunderstands the nature of Boot Camp, too. Boot Camp is not a capitulation but is a flank attack on Microsoft through Dell and HP. We are still speculating on how Apple will implement that attack. Boot Camp alone is not enough to be convincing, but what if Leopard 10.5 can run Windows-XP programs, too? That, I think, changes everything. Businesses can run proven and familiar Windows-XP programs without the vulnerabilities built into Windows. They will get all the advantages that Vista promises, but without Vista's drawbacks. Vista will be rough for quite a while; new software always is. I know that Microsoft is fighting back and I wouldn't want to count them out. But, many of their past decisions have put them behind the eight ball. Companies often leap-frog each other. First and second place companies change places, because business models run out and need to be changed. New technologies are developed which must be exploited or your market share vanishes when your customers move to your competition. You must, also, position yourself to take advantage of changes that won't happen for years and, in the meantime, you suffer for doing that. How well is Microsoft competing now? Not well at all; it has been resting on its laurels from thinking that it's customers are locked in to it. The Mac OS X operating system is superior to anything that Microsoft will make in the next five years. MS, to make anything better than the Mac OS, will necessarily go through the same kind of development hell that Mac OS X went through. Will Microsoft's customers hang on during the rough times ahead? I think not. Not when the Mac offers the flexibility to run all the programs that they are used to at the same or better speeds of x86 machines, at a price and quality equal to or better than a Dell. Another factor is the possibility of "Yellow Box for Windows." that is, an Apple development system that can be compiled into Macintosh or Windows API's, perhaps in a FatBinary on the same DVD. This would bypass the old "Windows has the developers" argument. Why? Because it would be cheaper to write programs for both systems concurrently and let the development system do the heavy lifting. How far away is Xcode from being able to do that? Not very far. A lot of things are coming to a head now. Technologies are being developed that put old software standards at risk. Global competition is heating up; American companies do not have any natural advantages. The far east will be challenging those American companies. It will take some time, but Microsoft's near monopoly will be overturned. It is not just that Microsoft's competitors are getting better and more numerous, but that Microsoft has made decisions that will come back to haunt them. It's going to be interesting times ahead.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Apr 22, 2006 Posts: 17
    Will Vista Be the Last Operating System Microsoft Produces?
  • hdjdnda wrote: "Today’s Vista began life in early 2005, when MS started over from scratch. That is, started over from the latest stable code base (Windows Server 2003 SP1) At that time, the idea was to tackle the problem of the over-complex code. Now, you can’t turn around in Vista without finding a core sub-system that’s been completely rewritten." Yes, that is exactly what I had read. And that is what I based my speculations on. "On another note, the ‘they stole from OS X’ argument is a dead horse. Windows, OS X, and Linux ALL owe some thanks to other OSes." Stole is the wrong word because Microsoft had every right to use Apple's technology from their deal seven years ago. It was that Microsoft had a blunder on it's hands, longhorn wasn't working right and they went with technology that they knew worked. I meant no disrespect to Microsoft here. They were smart to do it. "Video, audio, networking, you name it. They’ve been redone from the ground up with the future in mind. So you see it’s quite the opposite. After this initial hump, MS will be poised to crank out new releases." Yes, that is my point exactly. But, most of those releases will be in providing the fundamentals which will run well together, just like what happened with Mac OS X. It wasn't until 10.2 that Mac OS X was an acceptable desktop operating system, not until 10.3 until it became superior to Mac OS 9. Microsoft has lots of hard work ahead just to tread water. The problem that I see is that Microsoft might have started too late. MS has tons of money to throw at the problem and plenty of engineers. But, building in quality is going to hard. Their previous slap-dash methods won't help them here. The Mac OS is a standard that they are going to be compared harshly against. They had better get it right. And I don't know if two years of hard work is enough. A lot of the code is going be a kluge underneath. It will work, but they're going have to go back and fix it by providing the same kind of robust support structure that Apple already has.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Apr 22, 2006 Posts: 17
    Will Vista Be the Last Operating System Microsoft Produces?
  • James, I have no proof of this, but I think Microsoft bit the bullet two years ago. It's the reason that Longhorn (now Vista) was delayed. Longhorn's complexity grew so great that it became unmanageable. So, what does Microsoft do when its plans fail? It looked to Research South in Cupertino: that is, it copied Apple again. Do you know why Pink and Taligent didn't work? They were trying to create an integrated OS. And after a while, that becomes impossible. Yes, legacy hardware and software was part of the problem, but they still had that problem to solve with Copeland (Mac OS X.) The solution that Next provided to Apple was to build the OS in Modules on layers with functions which communicated with each other. That way you could change a part of a layer (a module such as Quicktime, say) without breaking everything on a higher layer. Mac OS X has the mach kernel that talks to the hardware. Above that is the Darwin Open Source BSD Unix layer. Above that is the Cocoa Application Programing Instruction Set and the Carbon API's which allowed Apple to run updated legacy Mac OS 9 software. And if you believe I, Cringley, the Microsoft Windows XP API's will be added in here in Leopard 10.5. Above that is Aqua, Quicktime, CUPS and a host of other operating system applications. And finally, you get up to the user applications which you run. Building an OS in modules allows you to change the internals of a module or the individual API's without breaking everything above. What I understand is that Apple only recently completed it's plans for the Cocoa and Carbon API's and has declared them mature, yet the Mac OS still ran for six years, just not as well as now. I suspect that Microsoft had to copy that modular system. This means that Vista will break many legacy applications and hardware the way that Mac OS X 10.0 did. Vista will not run on some computers that are being built now; that is the point of the Vista Capable and Vista Ready labels. Computers older than a few years will be forced to stay with Windows XP. If Microsoft did bite the bullet, then it will take the part of it's integrated OS which works acceptably and will increasingly be moving more of its subsystems to a modular system. Upgrades may be as fast and furious as the Development of Mac OS X was. This will not be convenient for either Microsoft or its users. Many current users will not be moving to Vista for some time. Partly, this is because there are many older versions of Microsoft Windows still being used and people often wait until their computer breaks down completely or some software that they need no longer functions. Then, they will be forced to upgrade to a new computer with Vista and, most likely, will have to buy new software. This presents Apple with an opportunity since the compatibility issue no longer matters. A consumer could buy a new Dell or HP computer with Vista or a Macintosh that runs both Macintosh and Windows XP programs transparently. Apple will not have to become a Microsoft OEM (as it has promised), because it already has the right to copy the Windows API's from its deal with Microsoft to share technology seven years ago. Since the Windows XP programs will run within Mac OS X's more secure shell there will be few differences in security, convenience or looks. The Applications will just work. And they will work on the Mac faster and better than they ever did in Windows. Meanwhile, most of the developing world will be moving to Linux, because of the $50 to $100 that Microsoft charges OEM's. As the cost of computer components declines and more of the components are moved onto the processor chip, the Microsoft tax will eventually become larger than the cost of a low end computer. China and India will be pouring billions of dollars into making the Linux desktop work. There will be enough problems with the Linux desktop to persuade anyone who can afford to do so to switch to a Mac or a Windows machine. But when most of the world can only afford a $100 computer, they can't afford another $50 to $100 in Microsoft tax. Apple will try to take over the top 25% of the computer market based on ease of use, flexibility and speed. Microsoft will be forced to play catchup while it's market share declines. Competition will be fast and furious. Many changes are coming in hardware as each component part of a computer gets it's own controlling processor chip. It is unclear who will win this game, but there are exciting times ahead.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Apr 21, 2006 Posts: 17
    Will Vista Be the Last Operating System Microsoft Produces?
  • Chris, I can't say that I pine to run Windows XP or Vista; it's more that being able to do so gets rid of some irritations. It is irritating how much of the Web obeys how Internet Explorer violates standard http protocols or how they put in ActiveX buttons in web pages so I can't toggle anything. So, I can't download AOL's old movies or Yahoo's computer games. Bah! I see Boot Camp as an extension of Apple's hardware standards. Apple doesn't sell a stripped computer to trick people into believing that they are getting the lowest price. You get a lot of ports and functions built in with Apple, maybe some that you think that you will never use. I bought a Superdrive with my 4 year old flat screen iMac and have yet to burn a DVD with it. But, the next computer I will buy, a Intel Mac, will have a Superdrive in it. Why? Maybe one day I will use it. It costs money to build these ports and features in, but most of them are necessary at some point in our lives. And it's worth more to buy them up front as a package, because they cost less than if you bought each of them individually. More than that, because they are standard; you know that they work. And they are immediately available, so you don't have to run down to the computer store to buy a card and take most of the next day configuring it and downloading drivers. It's just there and it works every time. Convenience cost money, but, damn it, I like it. It should be the same with software. Disk drives are getting so large now that I wouldn't mind paying a little more and getting a triple boot system. I probably wouldn't use Linux or windows very often, but I would like knowing that they are there. Yes, this kind of flexibility would convince some people to switch. But, the main asset to Mac users is not that saves us money, but that it saves us time. And it keeps us from getting pissed off because not everything in the world works well with a Mac.
    United StatesUrbanBard had this to say on Apr 18, 2006 Posts: 17
    OS X for All?