Print 101 comment(s) - last by GlobleWarmingi.. on Jun 18 at 1:20 AM

Some were not impressed by Apple's WWDC presentation, cute hypocrisy

Leave it to the pesky bloggers to rain on Apple's parade.  Yesterday at its Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco, it introduced a new iPhone, new Macs and several new software releases, including the Snow Leopard OS, set to beat Windows 7 to the market with a September release.  Apple was eager to fill users in with lots of facts about the new OS and how it outdid its competitors past (Windows Vista) and present (Windows 7).

How accurate were these facts really, though?  That's what several websites examined in the post WWDC keynote wind-down.  Leading the way was blog site NeoWin, which called Apple's hypocrisy "blinding".  The site points out that Apple's attempt to brand Windows 7 as Vista 2.0 seem glaringly inaccurate. 

True, Windows 7 shares much of Windows Vista's base code, but so have the last several iterations of OS X.  If Microsoft tried for a bigger revision, like it did with Vista or Apple did with OS X 10.0, it would risk delivering a shaky, maligned product -- like OS X 10.0 or Vista (at the start of its lifespan).  Instead, Microsoft wisely chose not to reinvent the wheel, but to improve on it and make it a bit shinier.

NeoWin also argues that Apple is doing its disservice dropping support for the PowerPC family, the source of Snow Leopard's install size savings.  While this may be practical for a company with such a high rate of hardware turnover and less than 10 percent of the market, it's something that Microsoft cannot and should not do, with over 90 percent of the market.  Surmises NeoWin cheekily, "So, to recap, Microsoft has increased support for lower end or older hardware with Windows 7, and Apple has dropped it all together with 'Snow Leopard'."

Paul Thurrott, a leading Windows blogger, also took issue with the remarks.  He pointed out that Apple's claim of 75 million OS X installs, only is true if you include 40 million iPhone and iPod Touches.  With Windows use at well over a billion installs, this places Apple at around 3.5 percent (or less) worldwide market share.

He also chimes in on the Windows 7 comments, stating:

Windows 7: "Even more complexity is present in Windows 7. The same old tech as Vista. Just another version of Vista."

Snow Leopard: "We come from such a different place. We love Leopard, we're so proud of it, we decided to build upon Leopard. We want to build a better Leopard, hence Snow Leopard."

Um. They sound the same to me. Jerk.

For the record, Snow Leopard looks just fine to me. It should, after three years of development on a point release.

While also impressed about MacBook pricing, Mr. Thurrott did lavish a bit of praise on Apple amid the admonishment.  He said that Apple's decision to price Snow Leopard at $29 was "exactly right".  He also comments that QuickTime X "actually... looks good."


Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Cost
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 11:27:00 AM , Rating: 5
Turn up your hearing aid, its history lesson time...

Most people forget that the underlying code in OSX is over 10 years old at this point. OSX was initially released in 1999 and was not a very fun system to use. I will give it to Apple, it works very well now, but, like Vista, it was a buggy mess at first.

For those of us that live in both camps, and remember the start, 1999 was a very bad year...Windows ME and OS 10.0 were awful.

In the years since, ME evolved into XP and OSX has evolved into Snow Leopard. With Vista, Windows was "rebooting" the Windows line like OS makers have done before. The real issue I have is that we are 10 years into OSX and where is the next Apple innovation or growth? Where is OS 11? They keep adding service updates, which work well, but now MS is stealing the mantle of innovator. They are the ones being daring and trying new things and Apple keeps playing the same cards, over and over again...

RE: Cost
By StevoLincolnite on 6/9/2009 11:36:23 AM , Rating: 5
In the years since, ME evolved into XP

I think you will find Windows XP evolved from Windows 2000, which evolved from Windows NT and not from a Windows 9x iteration, however some technology's might have made it's way from ME to XP, but I try not to think of that to keep my sanity and forget that ME ever existed...

RE: Cost
By AlexWade on 6/9/2009 12:40:51 PM , Rating: 5
The only thing that Windows ME gave to Windows XP was System Restore. Everything else was a Windows 2000 carryover or unique to XP.

RE: Cost
By Oregonian2 on 6/9/2009 3:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
XP's big thing was adding compatibility features to make the NT environment it inherited from Windows 2K that it's built upon more compatible with Windows 9x programs. I don't mean the NT environment was changed, I mean along the lines of virtual-machines and/or virtual environments per-process to give individual processes a more compatible environment. It was a way to get rid of the 9x line of software and maintain the NT line that continues into Windows 7.

P.S. - Right click (in XP) on a .exe file and see the compatibility options one can set for it, just in case it's a win 9x file -- rarely needed, but did help sometimes when XP first came out.

RE: Cost
By adiposity on 6/9/2009 6:03:00 PM , Rating: 2

There were several features in Me that were not in '98, which eventually made their way to XP.

One was the scanners and cameras sub system (called Windows Image Acquisition). This allowed the addition of scanners/cameras with requiring the use of the TWAIN system. The drivers were simpler to write and had a standard interface on XP. People use this feature every day at my work. It made its debut on Me.

Another was the software app Windows Movie Maker.

Another was the software DVD player that could play DVDs without a hardware decoder.

Windows Me was pretty much garbage, and if you didn't want these features you probably stuck with 98 or jumped to 2k. But it wasn't until XP that these features were available on a NT kernel.


RE: Cost
By teldar on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Cost
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 11:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
It was the last in line of 9x series and was the first to drop legacy DOS as training wheels. Despite our desire to forget ME, many of the features introduced in ME were carried into XP...Base code is completely different, but the desired plan and feature set are very similar.

The decision to drop DOS was huge, in the day, and it was the first of a break in the cycle of old systems Microsoft had done.

RE: Cost
By Griswold on 6/9/2009 12:38:03 PM , Rating: 3
You're right with the design bit, but neither ME nor XP were the first to drop DOS. That was NT (years before ME) followed by W2K, succeeded by XP.

RE: Cost
By WW102 on 6/9/2009 12:36:16 PM , Rating: 5
You damaged your believability there

The word you are looking for is credibilty.

I would assume believeability, if a word, would refer to Santa and Easter Bunny.

RE: Cost
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/9/2009 11:49:15 AM , Rating: 3
Whoa! ME evolved into XP?! Windows 2000 Professional evolved into XP. ME was the end of the DOS-based 3.1, 95, 98 line. XP was the end of the NT, 2000 line. Totally different kernels. ME killed the consumer line of Windows.

RE: Cost
By joemoedee on 6/9/2009 12:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
The OP isn't exactly wrong with the ME evolved to XP point.

It all depends on how you look at it. From a technical standpoint, yes, it's an incorrect statement. We all can agree that NT was the base for 2K, which in turn was the base for XP.

From a consumer's standpoint, it is a correct statement. The transition, or evolution, for the mainstream consumer was from Win 98/98SE/ME to Windows XP.

RE: Cost
By omnicronx on 6/9/2009 2:10:28 PM , Rating: 1
Windows XP = the merging of NT and 9x lines. Sure MS may tell you that there is no 9x code in XP, but we all know that is most likely untrue. I know for a fact that XP mimicks Windows 9x for many legacy pieces of hardware, this is one of the reasons that XP has a much larger array of hardware support than 2k.

RE: Cost
By just4U on 6/9/2009 4:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
From what I remember about WinME .. they tried to take bit's and pieces of what worked in 9x and meshed it (kinda sorta) with some NT features. XP was the first consumer OS to move to the NT kernal.. Course that didn't mean that they didn't have a few things thrown in for backwards compatability with 9x which had a massive install base.

RE: Cost
By BikeDude on 6/9/2009 5:50:16 PM , Rating: 3
There are still some very fundamental differences.

In Win9x/ME 16-bit processes have complete access to the metal. Meaning they can stop the interrupt controller (o 21 ff in IIRC), wipe out the interrupt vector table (f 0:0 L ffff 00 does the trick in and generally cause lots of confusion and loss of data.

In NT, all you could do is make life difficult for your own VDM. The user could easily run each 16-bit process in its own VDM, so life was much less complicated.

XP is like NT in this regard.

Sure, MS did a lot to ensure backwards compatibility. But XP still builds on the NT code base without any notable compromise. They did not revert back to Win9x' mixed 16/32-bit mode. 64-bit XP (and Vista) completely dropped 16-bit VDMs. (helped by AMD of course)

Perhaps you are referring to the Windows Driver Model? The modified NT driver model that was adopted by Win98 and carried through to Win2k IIRC? That is still NT technology... Not something dragged out of the Win 3.1 dark ages.

RE: Cost
By just4U on 6/9/2009 8:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
I just remember in the early days of WinXP being able to get certain dos programs running so I figured they'd have some backwards compatability built in or atleast a work around for it.

I have arguments with people all the time that say XP isn't NT based and I was always positive (still am) that it was the first NT Operating system that was made for the masses.. no 9X stuff at all.

RE: Cost
By icanhascpu on 6/9/2009 2:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
If the other guy needs a hearing aid, you need glasses, because you got some facts wrong.

One ignored requirement of being a snotty know-it-all is actually knowing what you're talking about.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki