backtop


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 MeesterNid on 6/9/2009 11:47:08 AM , Rating: -1
10.0 and 10.5 are not the same operating system. That's like saying when Windows came out it crashed a lot and threw BSODs out of the wazoo and then start adding up the cost of upgrading from 3.1 to Vista.

The best part is that all the people saying how horrible Apple is etc, etc have probably never used one of their products for a long enough period of time to really judge in any capacity.

Yeah, I know I'm trying to inject some reason here which is hard to get to when anti-Apple bias is chocking it down.


RE: Cost
By Screwballl on 6/9/2009 12:47:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
10.0 and 10.5 are not the same operating system.


Yes it is... thus the "10" version aka OS "X" which is also reliant on the kernel version. 10.1 was an update to 10.0 and so on up the line. That is like saying the original XP release is not the same OS as XP with SP2 or 3, or Vista original release is not the same as Vista with SP2.
OSX 10.0 and OSX 10.5 ARE the same OS, 10.5 just includes updates to the base OS. The same as the original release of Vista is the same as Vista SP2. The SP2 just adds updates and features to the base OS.

The difference between XP and Vista is the equivalent of going from OS9 to OSX, they ARE different operating systems.

The main difference is that Apple charges its customers for the same "updates" and "service packs" that Microsoft does not.

quote:
The best part is that all the people saying how horrible Apple is etc, etc have probably never used one of their products for a long enough period of time to really judge in any capacity.


That is a wide sweeping over-generalization... most of us here at DT have used all the different operating systems enough to know what works and what does not, and also enough to know that Apple is getting away with a business model of charging customers for service packs and updates, where Microsoft and open source operating systems do not.


RE: Cost
By wallijonn on 6/9/2009 2:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
where Microsoft and open source operating systems do not.


One should not use "Microsoft" and "Open Source" in the same sentence. :nono:

I see Win7 as a OSX killer; I really believe it is that good. Just so long as spyware, viruses, trojans, BHOs and browser hijacks are kept under control.

I am disgusted that Apple dropped PowerPC support. Sooner or later I'll have to get rid of my G4-933. And it'll probably be back to a Win7 box. I'll probably end up installing Ubuntu on my G4. Or buy a 24" wide screen Mac box.


RE: Cost
By MScrip on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Cost
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 5:03:49 PM , Rating: 5
And if everyone buys Macs, the Black Hats will follow along. Face it, Windows is much more secure than a Mac, because Macs just dont get tested as much, due to lack of install base to Pwn.

If you took the entire hacking/virus writing horde and promised them millions/rewards/whatever the hell they want to blow up Macs, OSX would crumple up like a cardboard box run over by a semi.

There is just no reward in doing this type of thing on a Mac, thus, it is "secure" due to community indifference.


RE: Cost
By 67STANG on 6/9/2009 7:35:34 PM , Rating: 5
I believe the term is "Security through obscurity". It comes free with every Mac.


RE: Cost
By MScrip on 6/9/2009 9:51:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you took the entire hacking/virus writing horde and promised them millions/rewards/whatever the hell they want to blow up Macs, OSX would crumple up like a cardboard box run over by a semi.

But since the hackers don't focus on Macs... that makes Macs more secure, right?


RE: Cost
By Helbore on 6/10/2009 2:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
Tha'ts like saying a house with no doors or Windows is more secure because its in the middle of a forest, instead of in the city. People can't see it, so you're secure.

Until someone sees it - then you're screwed.


RE: Cost
By MrWho on 6/10/2009 9:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
So I'll just stick with my PC and install Linux/FreeBSD/Whatever - I'll run away from Windows *and* keep my hard-earned money in my pocket.

Just to say that I have nothing against Mac hardware (okay, except for the price) - it's the OS that stresses me! So I have a nice handy first-generation iMac with Ubuntu running on it - and I quite enjoy it!


RE: Cost
By jconan on 6/15/2009 3:03:31 PM , Rating: 1
then why install bootcamp if you wanted windows out???


RE: Cost
By inighthawki on 6/9/2009 5:39:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I see Win7 as a OSX killer; I really believe it is that good. Just so long as spyware, viruses, trojans, BHOs and browser hijacks are kept under control.

TBH, this day and age, the only way to really get any of that junk is to download it yourself and install it personally, especially with vista. XP SP2 is very secure, and vista far more than that. As of vista, there really isn't much need for an antivirus at all unless you like to click banner ads and download "codecs" to watch porn...

People are just still paranoid, part of this is due to apple's ads saying that windows is very insecure and gets a lot of viruses, when in reality the average user probably won't run into one in a VERY long time, if ever.


RE: Cost
By Kary on 6/10/2009 12:28:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As of vista, there really isn't much need for an antivirus at all unless you like to click banner ads and download "codecs" to watch porn...


I thought so to, unfortunately my sister, within 2 days of getting a new PC proved me wrong by installing a Note/Calendar program that had about 15 of it's buddies tagging along that infested her brand new PC (and she promptly blamed it on her kids...after telling me she was the one who installed it to keep track of things).

As for a Mac, if they are completely immune to such attacks then it is probably for the same reason my 8086 is immune to all such attacks...it just isn't capable of running software.

PCs really REALLY do need to work on security, though.
1.Windows should track installs instead of trusting the programs installer to track them and WINDOWS should be in charge of making sure the program is completely removed instead of trusting the program to take care of undoing itself.
2.Which Codec is used for what needs to be more transparent.
3.DLL files should only be allowed to load when that program loads.
4.... (saddly, the list goes on)

I'm not for Macs, but there is still lots of room for improvement on PCs (and Macs)


RE: Cost
By eddieroolz on 6/9/2009 3:48:24 PM , Rating: 1
Nah, we're just relying on reason here too.

Reason is subjective. Don't try to be a smartass of the pack.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki