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 11:56:02 AM , Rating: -1
See I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was talking about the latest available version of OS X. If you want to play this game then we should go back to the days of Windows 3 or even MS-DOS and start talking defects, instability, speed. We can then start adding up the cost of upgrades from 3 to Vista which I'm pretty sure you don't want to do.

It's also funny how you state that the entire lifespan for Microsoft is seven year so apparently you're not starting from the beginning either.


RE: Cost
By AmbroseAthan on 6/9/2009 12:19:21 PM , Rating: 3
Honestly?

There have been a total of 7 of 7 OS's (consumer) for Microsoft in 19 years now if you include Windows 7 (I did wonder where that came from). 8 if you want to include 3.2.

Windows 3: 1990
Windows 95: 1995
Windows 98: 1998
Windows ME: 2000
Windows XP: 2001
Windows Vista: 2006
Windows 7: 2009

In that same time frame Apple has twice as many being each new update is considered a new OS, not a service Pack:
Mac OS 7.0: 1991
Mac OS 7.1: 1992
Mac OS 7.5: 1995
Mac OS 8.0: 1997
Mac OS 8.1: 1998
Mac OS 8.5: 1998
Mac OS 9.0: 1999
Mac OS 9.2: 2001
Mac OS 10.0: 1999
Mac OS 10.1: 2001
Mac OS 10.2: 2002
Max OS 10.3: 2003
Mac OS 10.4: 2005
Mac OS 10.5: 2007
Mac OS 10.6: 2009


RE: Cost
By IH8U2 on 6/9/2009 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
What no Windows NT, or 2000? What about CE (pocket PC)?

Windows NT 3.1: 1993 (numerous SP's)(dropped in 1998, for Win 2k)
Windows CE: 1996
Windows 2000: 2000


RE: Cost
By Syran on 6/9/2009 12:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
To his credit, he is only including the official "consumer" PC versions of Windows. CE was for mobile devices, and 2000 was only released for corporate use.


RE: Cost
By Syran on 6/9/2009 12:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There have been a total of 7 of 7 OS's (consumer) for Microsoft in 19 years now if you include Windows 7 (I did wonder where that came from). 8 if you want to include 3.2.

Windows 3: 1990
Windows 95: 1995
Windows 98: 1998
Windows ME: 2000
Windows XP: 2001
Windows Vista: 2006
Windows 7: 2009


I guess by 3.2 you mean 3.11? Which was actually more of a NT 3.5 precursor. 3.1 Would technically have been the last of the 3.x consumer OS imho, and it was a big change from 3.0 iirc.

You also forgot the OSR 2.0, 2.1, and 2.5 releases of Windows 95, which were never released in retail, but did include many upgrades that you simply didn't get in any form of other upgrade to 95; the biggest being USB support.

Finally, 98 also had 98SE, which you did have to pay to upgrade to, however, iirc, it was a nominal fee of $20-30 at the time.

The biggest issue with all the naming was that Windows 2000 was originally supposed to have a home version, that was not considered ready for the consumer, and hence, ME was put out at the last minute. It's the primary reason for the big change of names, which they went through again for XP.


RE: Cost
By BikeDude on 6/9/2009 5:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess by 3.2 you mean 3.11? Which was actually more of a NT 3.5 precursor


It was no such thing.

3.11 added some 32-bit drivers (e.g. the filesystem drivers were similar to those that were later appearing in Win95) and shared much common technology with Win95.

But NT 3.1 was written from the ground up, and shares nothing with 16-bit Win 3.x. Except the API is similar, and there are separate VDMs to run 16-bit apps. (unlike Win95 which had only one VDM which some of the OS' own code was running inside too - notably both GDI and USER)


RE: Cost
By croc on 6/9/2009 8:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
You do mean NT 3.0, right???


RE: Cost
By grandpope on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Cost
By Totemic on 6/9/2009 1:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Windows 3: 1990
Windows 3.1: 1992
Windows 3.11: 1994
Windows 95: 1995
Windows NT4: 1996
Windows 98: 1998
Windows 98SE: 1999
Windows ME: 2000
Windows 2000: 2000
Windows XP: 2001
Windows Vista: 2006
Windows 7: 2009"

For accuracy sakes, you're missing several:

Windows for Workgroup 3.11 (which included peer networking but very few used since most networks at the time were based on Novell's Netware).
NT 3.1, NT 3.5 and NT 3.51 (both workstation and server of each).

A better way to look at it is that MS had two lines of OS: The DOS/Windows based systems and NT kernel based systems. The former went from Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WfW 3.11, 95 (with OSRs), 98 and eventually ME. With ME being the final version for that kernel based.

NT kernel started at 3.1 (roughly around the time of Windows 3.1), 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000 and then to XP. Since XP, all Windows have been NT kernel based.

As far as consumer OS is concerned, XP was the first one of the NT kernel based systems targetted to consumers (hence, XP Home). Prior versions of NT based systems were targetted specifically towards businesses (which is why they had only the Workstation and Server flavors--well, 2000 included a few more business versions: Advanced Server, et.al. and NT 4.0 also had the little known Terminal Server edition).

Yes, you could use Windows NT 4.0/2000 at home, but very few did. Largely due to the cost and the lack of driver support.

So the original comment is roughly accurate. For the consumer line, it really went from Windows (the non-NT kernel line) to XP and then Vista/7 (I'm skipping some of the specialized versions of the OS like XP Embedded).

As for the CE line, they are almost exclusively for hand held and set top devices and not for general purpose computing.


RE: Cost
By theapparition on 6/9/2009 1:28:29 PM , Rating: 3
Where you fail is that several of the MS OS's were targeted towards certain segments, meaning that no one, and I mean NO ONE would have upgraded OS's on the schedule that you provided.

For example, someone on NT4 would not have decided to upgrade to 98, in fact, that was not even a valid upgrade. Nice attempt to skew the facts.

So the OP was absolutely correct if talking about consumer OS's.

You could break it down for consumer use as:
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows ME
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7

Business use would be:
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups)
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7


RE: Cost
By JediJeb on 6/9/2009 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 1
Wasn't there also a Windows 2? I seem to remember that back in college, but really noone bought it. Windows 3.0 was the first to break out into common use.


RE: Cost
By omnicronx on 6/9/2009 2:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 are really not different OS's, 3.11 just added workgroup or networking components and a few bug fixes (thus its name Windows for Workgroups).

In fact Ms only lists 5 changes between 3.1 and 3.11

- Certificate of Authenticity

- More sophisticated hologram and an MS (3M) sticker on box

- An 800 number to call (in the United States & Canada) and check for product legitimacy

- Updated drivers

- Five updated core files

- NetWare support files (from Novell)

98 and 98SE are also the same OS, it was a mere revision, with support for faster CPU's and various bug fixes. It was basically a service pack.

So once again, MS has had 9 major Windows releases if you do not count 1.0 and 2.0 which were never really consumer releases. Everything else was essentially a service pack.


RE: Cost
By Jimbo1234 on 6/9/2009 2:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
98 and 98SE are also the same OS, it was a mere revision, with support for faster CPU's and various bug fixes. It was basically a service pack.


However there was no service pack to make you 98 installation a 98 SE installation. You had to go out and buy another copy.


RE: Cost
By Totemic on 6/9/2009 10:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
"3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 are really not different OS's, 3.11 just added workgroup or networking components and a few bug fixes (thus its name Windows for Workgroups)."

No.
Windows for Workgroup 3.11 and Windows 3.11 were two different SKUs. They were not the same thing.

Windows 3.11 was actually an update to Windows 3.1. You couldn't buy a copy of Windows 3.11. You bought 3.1 and updated it to 3.11 (imagine service pack).

You could however buy Windows for Workgroup 3.11. The big thing with WfW 3.11 was the inclusion of 32-bit file system access and also the inclusion of a TCP/IP stack--unfortunately it was a stack that couldn't bind to a SLIP or PPP connection (which is why people still used Trumpet Winsock...whoa, there's a flash back), which is what everyone used for dial up internet access.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














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