Not A Pretty Vista
I just tracked down a PC Magazine piece about Windows Vista, the next-generation OS from Redmond. The details about the features (both ppresent and absent) were incredible. Here's a little preview:
You'll be able to create virtual folders based on a searches (already in Tiger).
You can store metadata with files (in the MacOS since the word "go").
IE7 will have tabbed browsing and RSS support (yeah, I'm down with that while using Safari).
The new graphics system will allow 3D effects and transparencies (stunningly like those in Tiger, though not available on all Vista-capable machines, unlike with Tiger).
It won't crash as much. Well, we've heard that before, and to some extent it has been true. Still, I've never had my system completely hand under any version of OS X, so I remain unimpressed.
There will be a command-line scripting environment. *Yawn* Been there, done that. System-level scripting is not new. In fact, before the effective destruction of the DOS prompt, it was available in Windows. It's rather sad that they have to bring it back, having axed it once before. This new version, though, should be better. Still, it won't make it into the initial 2006 release.
There are more, but after about 30 pages, I had lost track of most of the features. The one I am curious about is the Trusted Computing thing, but I don't want encryption hardware (yes, hardware) bolted onto my machine . . . under ANY operating system.
Despite everything, it looks as if this will indeed be the best version of Windows ever. I'm curious to see it next year, but by then I will be a short bike ride from Redmond, and I know people on the inside who can probably get me early looks.
p.s. No, Anton, this is not the same as saying that Apple can do no wrong. It's not even close. This is, however, evidence of how far behind the curve MS is.
posted by Andrew Purvis @ 6:55 AM
5 Comments:
Your main point is that Microsoft promises lots of things as if they would be the end all, though they are not. I agree, in fact some of these things I’ve already used in windows xp (like the scripting, virtual folders, fancy transparencies). But, how about Apple.
Quote myself from two posts down:
“The sheer number advantage of Windows over Apple has been a vicious cycle. At the same time the number difference is the reason (according to Microsoft) for Windows’ security problems. Another reason would be Microsoft’s incompetence.
I hope Apple holds the momentum. Still, by all indications, for you Apple can do no wrong, particularly technology-wise. Maybe you’re glossing over Apple’s shortcomings as you dream starry-eyed about Apple’s final victory.
Business and technology are not so disjoined in this field. If Apple had been sufficiently superior (technology-wise), they wouldn’t be the underdog. But Apple was no common underdog, for a long time it was a very sick puppy struggling on the verge of extinction. I reckon Microsoft does more wrong than Apple, particularly technology-wise. Although Microsoft blunders lots, Apple hasn’t delivered a solid blow to Mr. Gates yet.
Microsoft is still in a vastly better position than Apple and it won’t sit and wait for Apple to forge ahead. Now Apple is diverting more into the I-pod. Is it looking for an escape or for more resources with which to carry on the fight? “
Waiting for Apple to strike some fear in Microsoft has been in vain. Lynux now (more credibly) picked up that sword. I think Apple computers, though elegant, will continue to be marginal. By diversifying, Apple is growing without taking on Microsoft head on.
First, Apple is not diversifying in any way that it has not in the past. Apple is and always has been a hardware company. It makes its money selling hardware, not software and copies of the OS (which was free prior to System 7). As it developed more and more ways to integrate the things people had, the iPod came along. People bought it. In astounding numbers. Last quarter was the best quarter in Apple's history. Why? Yep, iPods. Oh yeah, and that their sales of compuuters are the best ever, which also reflects the spike in sales growth (market share). I am not sure why, when it is MS that tries to take Apple on head-on, instead of the other way around, Apple should chart a course to Redmond. MS looked into making it's own MP3 player, but it opted to back others, instead. Those others (along with the rest of the pack, tobe fair) lost more market share and customer base. I guess I don't see what makes one say that Apple needs to do something to take on MS. Given that MS is a software company and Apple a hardware company that also makes some software, what should Apple be doing, in your opinion?
Do you want a post of the ways in which Apple (post 1/24/84) went wrong or failed? It will take me a while to get that much together, and I'd appreciate a guarantee that it wouldn't go unread. Before that one, though, I am pretty sure I will be proposing my (non sequitur-based) OS development theory.
If you start of with “First, …” it’s good form to have a “Second, …” and perhaps a “Third,…” Pretty cheeky of me to challenge the English master on his turf, I await the onslaught. Honestly, I’ll try not to mind it.
Apple is stuck in a death grapple with Microsoft, whether they like it or not (I’m guessing they don’t like it). I suppose Apple isn’t aiming to take on Microsoft, it just happens. In my opinion, Apple is doing swell given their sickly history. Don’t go through the history lesson. What is your OS development theory?
Suggesting that Apple is "stuck in a death grapple with Microsoft" bypasses the key element of the issue. It is not to Microsoft's benefit to have no commercial competition. Two things would happpen: 1) MS would face serious regulatory oversight, and 2) MS would lose its core R&D department. I am still trying to think of a single thing MS has implemented in a GUI OS that was not implemented earlier by a Steve Jobs company (PARC and other facilities often developed them even earlier, in many cases). I am still failing to come up with anything. Essentially, functionality on the Windows side, premieres on the Mac (or, in a few cases, NeXT) side. MS needs Apple. Likewise, Apple needs MS. David's nobody without Goliath. Next to Goliath, however, he comes across as a nimble, outmatched underdog.
History is an interesting point, though. MS was able to do what it did, in great part, to money that it gained from illegal (anti-competitive) business deals. Brilliant in business is one thing, but I suspect there's a reason Gates keeps a Mac on his desk.
If you want a pop culture comparison, think of the original Star Trek episode with Frank Gorshen (R.I.P.). He and his opposite number were done up in black-and-white face paint, their faces divided down the middle and colored opposite to one another's. While they hated one another, they needed one another. This is the central fact of the Apple-MS struggle. It goes on because it must.
Yes but… Microsoft needs commercial competition in order to escape government regulation. However if Microsoft had its way, the competition would be no more than a sham. In Microsoft’s ideal scenario, the competition, though technically still existent, would practically have no will of its own. The competition would be perpetually a hair’s breath from death, kept alive at Microsoft’s pleasure. Thus I still call it a death grapple.
David and Goliath were engaged in a death struggle, if I may extend your metaphor. In this case Goliath wants David almost dead, like farmer boy in the Princess Bride.
Post a Comment
<< Home