backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by Wiggy Mcshades.. on Jul 23 at 11:12 AM


Microsoft's Kevin Turner
Perhaps you could say that implies that Microsoft thinks Apple will rebound from problems?

In the realm of bold statements, you might expect Microsoft's vocal and boisterous CEO Steve Ballmer to be sounding off.  But instead it was mustachioed chief operating officer Kevin Turner who was playing the axman leveling a wild statement against one of Microsoft's chief rivals.

Speaking about the Windows Phone 7 series, which will be released over the holiday season, Turner remarked, "It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that."

The remark was not first time Microsoft admitted that Vista -- which never passed its predecessor Windows XP and was swiftly passed by its successor Windows 7 -- was far from a success.  Ballmer had previously bemoaned that Vista was "not executed well."

It is also unsurprising that the iPhone 4 would be receiving criticism.  From Apple's arrogant approach to antenna issues (it's all in your head -- the phone is just drawing the signal bars wrong) which yielded a new class action suit, to proximity sensor issues, the iPhone 4 is coming under increased scrutiny.  Even the typically pro-Apple 
Consumer Reports, despite offering overall praise for the phone's hardware, said it could not recommend it because of the severe antenna problems.

What is perhaps surprising is that Microsoft would be the one to criticize Apple's phone debacle.  Microsoft just had its own phone bungle when its 2-year long Kin project (stemming from the $500M+ USD Danger acquisition) ended after two months in a train wreck.  Estimates indicate that just over 8,000 Kin phones were sold.  Much of the reason for the failure was reportedly due to Microsoft's insistence that Danger port its code to Windows CE.

Furthermore, Microsoft has even shown close to showing admiration for its rival's success in the smartphone sphere.  It has said that it is "following in Apple's line" in releasing a feature incomplete phone (in its opinion) early, and then filling in the holes.  It is also embracing Apple's approach of censoring adult materials, and even joined in the criticism of Adobe's Flash platform.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Vista?
By Fanon on 7/14/2010 5:59:15 PM , Rating: 5
What people seem to forget is XP has the same problems Vista had. The OS wasn't the problem. 3rd party software was the problem.


RE: Vista?
By Solandri on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Vista?
By seamonkey79 on 7/14/2010 8:13:38 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I find it ironic that the biggest 'problem' with Vista is that it broke software because the OS functioned much like Linux and Unix based OS's have since forever.


RE: Vista?
By inighthawki on 7/14/2010 8:20:59 PM , Rating: 4
No, hate to say it but this is one of those occasions where "everyone else" was wrong. No app developer should have designed the application to run in admin mode in the first place. This is by NO means Vista's fault for upping security. If you don't program properly/securely you can't blame it on the OS developer when they enforce that behavior.


RE: Vista?
By chemist1 on 7/14/2010 10:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with inighthawki that MS was right to up security, and enforce that. Lord knows they needed it. But let's not let MS off the hook here and blame the developers. Until Vista, Windows operating systems were designed to have applications that were written for them run using root privileges (which was precisely the truck-sized security hole they decided to fix with Vista).

Incidentally, this is one of the key reasons OSX has had superior security to Windows (those who argue that it's simply security via low market share notwithstanding): OSX, like (as I understand it) all Unix and Linux-based operating systems, is designed for applications to be installed without root privileges, thus minimizing the damage that a malicious application can inflict. [Yes, there are rare applications, like Fink, that require root privileges on OSX--but, in requiring such, they force the user to set a root password, etc.; i.e., the user is unlikely to be tricked into installing malicious software that requires root privileges on OSX, unlike Windows XP where, by default, all apps were accorded it.]


RE: Vista?
By noirsoft on 7/14/2010 11:15:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But let's not let MS off the hook here and blame the developers


Given that Microsoft told developers before XP came out to stop relying on admin access to things and to fully test their software in a limited user account, and also informed them that in the OS after XP, such limitations would be fully enforced, I believe it is 100% reasonable to blame 3rd party developers for failing to have their software work under Vista properly.


RE: Vista?
By chemist1 on 7/15/2010 12:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
quoting: "I believe it is 100% reasonable to blame 3rd party developers for failing to have their software work under Vista properly."

I agree with you. But I was referring not to the Vista-not-working-with-apps issue (which is of course the app developer's fault if they require admin privs.), but rather the security issue. I was unaware that MS also warned developers not to use admin priv. for XP, so thanks for that info.

So, I'd modify my statement to read as follows: Let's not let MS off the hook for security issues, with its earlier operating systems, resulting from the easy access to admin. priv. by application software---since, historically, until Vista, they allowed that access, which is something they never should have permitted from the start.


RE: Vista?
By Solandri on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Vista?
By Solandri on 7/15/2010 6:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, that's kinda long so let me summarize: There's "where do we want to go?" and "how do we get there?". I completely agree with the folks here saying that Vista's security model was a good answer to "where do we want to go?". Where Vista failed was in the "how do we get there?".


RE: Vista?
By icanhascpu on 7/15/2010 1:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
No, I remember when XP came out. 'WINDOWS 2000 FOR LIFE!' was heard through each dorm, but XP did not have the issues Vista did. Vista was second only to WinME. Sluggish, and quaky and unfinished. The 3rd party issues were just the icing.

You can pretend it was a simple matter of people 'not remembering' but the fact of the matter is I had to stay with XP after being in Vista for months, and it was just subpar. The switch from XP to Win7 64bit was good, and I did not have the sluggish feeling Vista had.

Vista = Crap
Win7 = Mature polish OS.


RE: Vista?
By Bateluer on 7/15/2010 2:13:29 AM , Rating: 2
Rose colored glasses? XP was just as buggy and quirky when it was released, and took until SP2 and a few dozen hot fixes to get it into the polished state of today.

Everyone always seems to overlook a few facts. XP, released in 2002, was designed to run on hardware from the 2000 era. On the majority of the systems at the time, entry level machines, they were only equipped with 256MB of RAM. 256MB of RAM made for a fairly smooth experience in Win2k. It did not in XP, 512 was needed for the same level. More was preferable. For Vista, 512 was akin to 256 in XP, and once again, the majority of entry level machines at Vista's release used 512MB of RAM.

Windows 2000 was a great OS, and I stuck with it until I built an entirely new rig in late 2003 and purchased a full license for XP Pro along with it. Got Vista Business 64 on a student license and haven't looked back, its stability has been far superior to anything I got in XP.

Also got 7 on a student license. Woot.


RE: Vista?
By SteelyKen on 7/15/2010 3:49:43 AM , Rating: 3
Actually icanhascpu remembers better than you and I will gladly back him up. I was here then and I can assure you the XP launch and its first year, while not silky smooth, was not in the same ballpark as Vista's. I will grant you it's problems were as much perception as reality, but it still was not "the same" as XP.

In fact, in terms of public perception and on a lesser scale overall performance and compatibility Vista was more like Win ME than XP. So while Vista was not the comparative disaster of ME, it was following a much stauncher predecessor in XP than the latter faced in following the trifecta of Win 98SE, Win 2000 and Win ME. Windows 2000 was certainly as stable (probably more so) and leaner, but its relative lack of gaming compatibility (yes, it got better by SP2) was a sticking point. XP stood pretty much alone at the Vista launch and was a much tougher act to follow.


RE: Vista?
By jabber on 7/15/2010 5:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well that but I think the big problem was that there was a more than 5 year gap after XP came out till Vista arrived.

Thats a long time for an OS to get entranched and folks got too used to it.

Up till that point it was a new OS every 2 years or so.

Thats what MS wants to get back to.

XP got a lucky break thats all.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














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