Vista vs OSX : Mad Props!

You're reading Mabsterama, the weblog of Matt Hamilton. Enjoy your stay.

Vista vs OSX

I promised Pete I'd give him some link love if he posted his thoughts on this, so here goes.

Over on BrownBot there is a tirade about how Microsoft have "ripped off" the features from Apple's OSX in Vista.

Now, I can go point-by-point and completely debunk some of those myths. For example:

Apple (and even Mozilla) did not invent tabbed browsing
Photo thumbnails have been in Windows since Win2000 - so comparing Vista's photo manager to iPhoto is a bit of a cheap shot
Windows Media Player has used the "treeview down the left" to display playlists etc since ... well ... the first version after 2.0 (was it 6?). That's way before iTunes appeared on the scene, if I remember right.
The "expose" vs "flip" debate is a bit moot. Windows 3.0 had alt+tab, and that feature has just been leapfrogged by Apple. Now MS are leapfrogging them. That's what competition's about. I'm not saying that MS invented task switching, but I'm definitely arguing that OSX didn't introduce the concept.

There are other places where Pete's happy to confuse facts for opinion, but I do agree with him in some ways.

When Apple shifted from their old OS9 platform to OSX, it was a big change, and by all reports it was a long and frustrating wait for Apple users. The result was worth the wait, they say.

Why, then, is Microsoft's "big shift" taking place all these years later? Why are we getting a slew of new and interesting features (some of which are plainly "catch-up" features to compete with innovation on Linux and OSX) now, rather than back in the Windows 2000 or XP time-frame?

That's the frustrating part.

I suppose part of the reason is that MS has been focusing on security so much recently, what with their operating systems being the biggest target for exploits and attacks. Instead of being able to focus on a whole new OS, they've had to release XP SP2 and various other upgrades to existing products.

And, of course, there are a lot of big releases planned for Vista that are also being backported to XP. When OSX came out I don't think the new features also worked on OS9.

So yeah, I'm frustrated by the seeming lack of innovation from MS, but at the same time ... I have a feeling that when Vista is released, Microsoft users are going to be thumbing their noses at Apple and Linux guys for some time.

Google Ads

Comments

# crucible 24/03/2006 1:09 PM	Just out of interest, cos I have no idea and I'll admit that... Does Apple release server products like Exchange, SQL, BizTalk, Sharepoint, etc? Do they release programming tools like VS2005 with C#, VB, J#, etc? Have they released anywhere near the magnitude of Microsofts product releases over the last year? I mean, the most I know of Apple is iPod and iTunes and Quicktime... but it seems to me that Microsoft has a whole helluvalot going on and comparing Apple releasing one operating system product with Microsoft releasing an Vista, at the same time as they produce Windows Server 2003, Exchange 2003(5?), Sharepoint, Office 12, SQL 2005, Virtual Server 2005, etc... Yeah, I don't get it, whats apple doing thats so great again? The world doesn't rotate without Microsoft, I'm afraid - and I don't see Apple competing in the same market as them... Thats like saying Panasonic are Microsoft's competition because they do home entertainment which is competition for Media Center... or Sony is competition because of the PS2... They're competition in areas, but if this is an Apple vs Microsoft debate... If it's just a interface/software/OS debate... then I'm pretty sure there was a punch card/valve computer that had a user interface and some noise before both of them... :P
# mabster 24/03/2006 1:15 PM	Paul Thurrott had a "Vista vs OSX" article on his site, where he made an interesting point. Most of the "whiz-bang" features in OSX were actually previewed as being part of the "next Windows release" back at the PDC in 2003. Thurrott theorizes that Apple jumped on the opportunity to implement these features and ship them in Tiger before MS could get a Vista beta going. Apple's OS-focus as a company, and the fact that they only needed to support one set of hardware, means that they can get releases out the door faster than MS. So even though some of these ideas were actually first demoed by MS, Apple were able to ship them first. Interesting!
# crucible 24/03/2006 1:23 PM	y'know I heard that Apple hire psychics to read the Windows dev teams minds... Damn Apple.
# Poo 27/03/2006 8:31 AM	Crucible your comments only strengthen my argument, you say "and I don't see Apple competing in the same market as them..." I agree, Apple are a hardware manufacturer. Why is it then that a hardware manufacturer that makes a fraction of Microsofts income ([mostly] a software house) has a superior OS. This is an unwinnable argument, I'm just making a point that a lot of what we're going to get in Vista has been available for some time, just making sure people are aware that Microsoft are actually several years behind rather than ahead.
# mabster 27/03/2006 8:48 AM	I think the point here is that Apple is a bit more "agile" than MS. Most of the whiz-bang features in OSX were either already present in Windows, or were previewed before Tiger appeared. Not to say that they were necessarily Microsoft's ideas, but I'm just saying that Apple didn't necessarily invent them. It's just that Apple is a smaller, more tightly-focused company, and could spit out these ideas faster than MS could. I still believe that Vista has a few surprises in store for us ... which will no-doubt have Apple (and Linux, of course) scrambling to play catch-up in the future.
# crucible 27/03/2006 10:33 AM	mmm I kind of agree with you Poo, but then I don't... A whole lot of this innovation, is window dressing... I mean, sure better GUIs are important, but all it is a new fresh coat of paint on existing systems. The new functionality that exists out there was probably already available in many third party applications, before Apple even had them. The point is, third party app vendors can work much faster than any company releasing an OS, they are the front runners on innovation and for the most part it's new ways to use old methods. I learn't SGML and DTD at university, and I'm not entirely sure, but from what I've seen of XML it's pretty much that same thing (and this was over 10 years ago). We're just getting new methods to do the same things easier - the data transfer methods of XML these days are great - RSS is one example. But again, 10 years ago, I had a program that would poll a website and give me information when an update occured. Of course, that wasn't optimal, because it was reading a lot of data still - but that technology existed. Now, it's just applied to read a streamlined formatted text document which can be stored and read at a later time without approaching the site it's read from. So the technologies behind RSS have been around 10 years that I know of, probably Way before that... and yet RSS has become huge in what, the last couple of years? I only started reading feeds majorly in the last year - I was out of the game for a while... I see where you're going with Apple is a hardware vendor, and they "create a superior OS" paraphrasing even though I could quote - but thats to reduce it... What Mabster pointed out was correct - Apple, from the start, controlled their hardware - the end user could only buy hardware from Apple, and it was all of one specification. Microsoft is writing for many different chips, peripherals, and suppliers... and has since DOS was a baby. That's part of the reason Microsoft and IBM PC became so huge over time - because it was cheaper and faster to get equipment because of competition. It's also their problem, because any OS has to support all these systems out there. My other point was that Microsoft have to support and program a multitude of other systems at the same time, plus provide interconnectivity. I think what you've got to remember is, Apple hasn't provided a superior OS. They've provided a newer OS. And I don't believe for a second they didn't look at XP, or Linux, or any other OS... they didn't look at third party programs that were common and popular to their users... and they didn't look at marketting and other factors, when creating the interfaces. So I don't see why MS wouldn't do the same creating their newer OS? And finally, because I just tend to ramble... Why wouldn't MS rip off some of OSX? One of the problems with people working between any two systems is the difference... having to learn both... Surely the more similar the two are the easier it would be for anyone to transition between them? (and hopefully convert some more Mac people). In the end, if they made Vista more difficult for Mac users to use - they'd have done something wrong.
# Poo 27/03/2006 1:01 PM	Crucible your argument is all over the shop, I think Mab gets what I'm on about. Why are Microsoft with their VERY deep pockets so far behind in their OS? Don't go into all that they control the hardware crap... Apple are most of the way through migrating to another processor, doesn't seem to have slowed them down too much.
# mabster 27/03/2006 1:15 PM	The "moving to a new processor" thing is a bit of a moot point, though, since OSX is based on a fairly mature cross-platform OS (BSD?), so it wouldn't have been a huge leap to change processors. Getting MacOS onto a unix foundation is part of what made them so agile in the first place ... I'm guessing that once they had that code base down, it was very easy for them to [mab puts on asbestos suit] check out what Microsoft were announcing at the PDC in 2003 and implement all their ideas. :)
# crucible 27/03/2006 2:56 PM	Okay, all over the shop? I thought I went through a nice story... I explained how any innovation of Apple wasn't theirs to begin with... then I explained how yes, I agree that OSX may be prettier than XP, but they would have based some of their design of XP... then I agreed that Vista will "rip off" OSX, because MS is improving their interface... and then I explained how it's all based on third party tool improvements, and more current design and marketting... the only improvements we see in any OS is the same progression we see in other things... 3.1 was Star Trek 95/98 was Next Gen 2000 was Voyager XP was Enterprise... ooh look, TV shows improved in quality of effects and production... could OS design be the same? And to "not go into that OS crap" Apple did retool for their new chip... but I think a lot of their higher end code would have been abstracted away from the CPU... just guessing... but again they went from one standard setup, to a new standard setup - where they don't have to support multiple manufacturers - if you want that arguement - Microsoft did the XBox 360 in a couple of years... it runs an OS on a standard setup - does sound/video/input too :) I'm not trying to go into a bashing Apple, just to clear that - I think they do brilliant work with their systems... I just live in a Microsoft world... and I'm cool with that... But yeah, I don't see why Microsoft changing to be more like Apple is some big no, no... because as much as they could be going to the same interface parts as Apple - third party developers did it first... and would still be doing it... I see it as kind of a moot arguement, because don't all competitors rip off their competitions best ideas as much as possible? If it puts you out that much consider it an homage.... - me, being all over the place... again... no doubt.
# mabster 27/03/2006 3:04 PM	Think of all the traffic this would have generated on BrownBot if Pete's blog supported comments! :)
# crucible 27/03/2006 3:23 PM	Comments are the devil - you get people like me flaming you :P
# crucible 27/03/2006 3:24 PM	by the way - I had to really think hard about that star trek analogy - I'm not that geeky ... I just wanted it to be relatable for the rest of y'all. And I just remembered that the other one was Deep Space 9, cos all I could think of was Babylon 5... that show rocked.
# michaeldell 1/01/2007 2:14 AM	Microsoft with ballmer ????? no a lot future to see and apple is growing to fast and high they will buy sun for enterprise
# Sonic 2/02/2007 12:56 AM	U all have obviosly never owned a Mac. And Yes. I am a switcher.
# iMacabre 13/02/2007 10:35 PM	Yeah, I like it when people judge things they don't understand. Get a mac, spend a week with it, and come again here flaming...
# Nenita 7/03/2007 3:45 AM	Crucible. in many of your points you are correct, when apple came out first with a GUI for consumer level computers, the technology was out in prototypes at xerox, same with the mouse. the widgets was an implementation of a 3rd party developer, and i am sure many other features in OSX were copied or borrowed from linux or whatever. it is also very true that M$ has to work with many manufacturers that can run their os. Given that, why make an os based on 2003 server? and not come out with something new like apple did, never mind copying features, but just come out with a NEW os not just the same os with a new facelift, and new requirements that make most computers obsolete. when OS9 got replaced by OSX, you can install it on the older machines, even today my grandmother has a 12 year old mac running OSX 10.2, for her basic needs its more than enough. and dont talk about how much Apple or M$ has on their plate because if you take a tour of the Apple site check hardware, software, servers, education, so on and so forth, you will see that Apple is more than just iTunes and iPod and a few Macs yet they manage to produce a very stable easy to use OS. Now on your analogy of the Xbox360, well it its M$ controled platform, yet it has reported crashes and problems just like their OS, so don't even. Oh and isn't it amazing that M$ new OS doesn't even support their own Music player?... talk about missing the ball. But hey I'm not some person in the know so lets just check what Technology Review has to say: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17992/

Mad Props!

Tags

Vista vs OSX

Google Ads

Comments