Marshymellow: Apple's hypocrisy is blinding

It would seem hard for any logical person to see the statements Apple made about Windows Vista and Windows 7 today, and think they were not anything but hypocritical.

In case you missed it during the WWDC keynote today, Bertrand Serlet, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering at Apple, took the stage to introduce Apple's newest operating system version, Mac OS X "Snow Leopard", version 10.6. In his introduction, he took a swipe at Microsoft and Windows Vista. Not surprising, considering the majority of the company's advertising budget for OS X seems to be focused on that very thing. It's also not surprising because it is generally acknowledged by the technology community (and even those outside it) that Windows Vista was a flop.

But, it wasn't enough to take a swipe at Vista. Serlet decided to key us all into what is perhaps Apple's new spin on Windows 7... that it has "even more complexity" than Vista. Why? Because it's based on the "same old tech as Vista." Basically, they've gone out of their way (and I think will continue to do so), to try and label Windows 7 as "Windows Vista 2.0"

Maybe. It's true that Windows 7 is based on the same code tree and technologies as Windows Vista. Just like Windows Vista was based on Windows XP, and that was based on Windows 2000, and Windows NT 4, etc, etc. What was Apple expecting Microsoft to do, drop everything and code a brand new operating system and drop support for the millions of devices and software in the Windows eco-system? Sure, you can do that kind of stuff if you're Apple, kind of like what they did between Mac OS 9 and OS X 10.0. If memory serves, that didn't go so well for them right off the bat, but it was fixed by the time OS X 10.1 came around. If you're Microsoft, that isn't exactly the kind of thing you do when you have 90%+ of the desktop operating system market either. Remember when they tried doing a little bit of that with Vista... see where that got them?

But, I digress. We're not just here to talk about Windows 7 vs Windows Vista. We've not really reached the hypocrisy of Apple's statement yet. Their keynote has just started. We have to get into the introduction of OS X 10.6 to see that.

The fact that Mac OS X 10.6 is called "Snow Leopard" should be the first indication something is not right. Most techies know that Apple codenames their OS X after wild cats. First came "Cheetah" (10), then "Puma" (10.1), "Jaguar" (10.2), "Panther" (10.3), "Tiger" (10.4) and "Leopard" (10.5) -- Probably some type of sort of allusion to cats being fast, or aggressive, or something... I'm sure someone with more knowledge into the inner-workings of Apple can explain their naming logic better than I can. But the point is, with each one of these releases, Apple had enough distinction between the versions that it was a different animal.

With 10.6, it's just "Snow Leopard." 10.5 was "Leopard," 10.6 is "Snow Leopard." It's the same animal, only one hangs out in the snow.

(Interesting fact I learned while researching this article. According to Wikipedia, real snow leopards cannot roar. They lack some features in their larynx that other big cats have. Seems fitting.)

The reason why it's just "Snow Leopard" and not something new like "Lion" is because it's a refinement of the technologies in "Leopard" 10.5. Apple will admit this, they actually talked about it in the keynote. In fact, on the Apple website they say that "Snow Leopard" is "Refined, not reinvented." For the most part, it looks the same. If you look at a screenshot of 10.5 vs 10.6, it generally looks the same. Sure there are new features and some interface improvements, but there is no drastic modification to the interaction with the operating system.

"Snow Leopard" does make some big improvements under the hood. As was stated in the keynote this morning, they have refined 90% of Leopard. Finder has been rewritten, Safari is faster, hardware accelerated Quicktime, better searching, Exchange integration and better 64-bit software support. Despite what some have said, it is a new operating system. I don't mean to in anyway disparage the work that Apple has done because it is a new big release and not just a service pack.

Just in the way that Windows 7 is an improvement from Windows Vista. Yet, somehow when Microsoft does it, it's different?

I also applaud Apple for offering Snow Leopard as an upgrade for only $29 to Leopard users. They must have seen the news that Microsoft would be offering Windows 7 upgrades for far less than "normal" ($49) and decided they should do the same. In such a tough economic time it's good to see the price reflect the market a bit.

Apple may have seen the news about Windows 7 pricing, and acted accordingly, but that may have been the only thing they've been reading about Windows 7. Perhaps they missed the part about it having far better performance than Windows Vista, or how Microsoft did nearly the same thing Apple did... went back and "refined" (to use Apple language) the parts of Windows that needed work. The fact that Windows 7 runs better on lower end hardware then Vista did, should be an indication that they've done a good job of speeding up overall performance.

Apple also made a big point in saying that they've cut the initial install size of the operating system by 6GB. That's an impressive amount of space, I will admit. In all honesty it amazes me how large operating systems have become. There is a lot of things that are in a default Windows install (any version) that could probably use some cleaning. But, the reason why they were able to reduce the size is partly due to the fact that they have cut support for Power PC hardware with 10.6. I'd be angry if they didn't decrease the size of the operating system when they dropped all the code that was no longer needed to support all that legacy hardware.

That is, unless you're still using a Power PC.

No, I don't expect Apple to support "old" hardware forever. Except, it's really not that old. The first Intel Macs were released in January 2006. The last Power PC Macs were sold in August 2006. That wasn't even three years ago. The switch happened in between version 10.4 and 10.5 of Mac OS X and right around the same time Windows Vista was released.

Could you imagine the outcry from the technology community if Microsoft told customers that they couldn't upgrade from Windows XP or Windows Vista to Windows 7? Or worse yet, that the hardware they purchased right at the end of life for Windows XP, was not able to run Windows 7 at all!? Not just that it would run it slowly, it won't run it at all!? People would be lighting torches and grabbing pitch forks to storm the gates of Redmond. But yet, a version and a half later, Apple can drop support for an entire fleet of systems. I guess that's something you can do when you control hardly 10% of the market, and have fiercely loyal users who buy new hardware all the time. I guess all that support for an entire library of devices and software is what Apple considers "even more complexity."

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".

Again, Apple deserves credit for the work they've done with "Snow Leopard" -- while I have not seen it myself, those who have tell me it is faster and has a lot of nice new features. It is "refined" as Apple says. Just like Windows 7 is faster and more refined than Vista.

Apple has a product that in some ways is superior to Windows, that does not have many of the problems that plague the Windows ecosystem. Apple can get away with a lot more than Microsoft can in terms of dropping support for older devices. But Apple needs to learn how to promote their technologies on their own merits, instead of acting like the pretty girl in high school that lobs insults at the ugly one to make itself feel better.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple releases Safari 4

Next Story

Nokia N97 hits U.S. flagship stores today

263 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"Could you imagine the outcry from the technology community if Microsoft told customers that they couldn't upgrade from Windows XP or Windows Vista to Windows 7? Or worse yet, that the hardware they purchased right at the end of life for Windows XP, was not able to run Windows 7 at all!? Not just that it would run it slowly, it won't run it at all!?"

Uh - you're joking, right? How's RC1 of Windows 7 for DEC Alpha working out for you? How about the one for MIPS? PowerPC? I seem to remember NT on all of those, right? NT 3.1? And when NT 4.0 came out, no dice for the people that had bought those machines. Wait, that's only 1 release later... how DARE Microsoft drop support for obsolete hardware!!!

@Author

As you may be able to tell from my username I am admittedly a mac fan, which may regrettably lead to a quick dismissal of "trolling" on a win forum. However, even though I do have a strong preference for macs (OS X specifically, the hardware - less so) first of all I would like to commend you on such a good article!

I personally hate the irrationality most mac fans exhibit towards Apple in their lack of critical observation of what the company does. It is clear that - as you state - Apple was being nothing short of hypocritical in its statements of Vista 2.0 vs Snow Leopard (Leopard 2.0 - just switching a numbering scheme for an adjective...smart advertising only if you think most people are really that dumb). The fact that you mention - that both releases mostly focus on optimization - really upsets me when taken in context of how Serlet portrayed things at the keynote. What's up with the press as well, why can't they see through the utter BS..."MS hates Vista, so they are optimizing it"..."We love Leopard, so we are optimizing it"...I really don't care if you (Serlet) get off to the picture of a Leopard - the end result for me is *exactly* the same.

Moreover, the allusions to "security" sprinkled throughout the keynote (this and others past) really tick me off. MS has their security act together WAY BETTER than Apple. To this point, people debate what makes OS X "secure". I call BS on the "Unix underpinnings". Absolutely, they provide a much better foundation to build a secure OS - but something completely different is actually building upon it. As it currently stands, this is not the case. Inherently OS X COULD be way more secure than Windows, but right now it is far behind. Relying on "security through obscurity" (which I believe is currently the reason why OS X remains "relatively" safer) won't last much longer. The safari hack in 3 seconds is just as embarrassing as it gets.

Apple seems to be picking up the ball on this, with the sandboxing features mention @ WWDC / Sandboxing on iPhone OS / TrustedBSD MAC Framework, and most notably hiring the security GENIUS behind the OLPC security system. Promising developments for sure, but still quite a way to go. Security should become not only a main design philosophy but also a priority recognized at the corporate structure level. MS, even though they still suffer from security exploits frequently, IMHO have done a formidable job, Vista being a manifestation of such hard work.

Apple fanbois actually think they are doing Apple some sort of "good" by defending what clearly are ridiculous statements. I hate the fact that they utterly disregard basic critical though and just realize the most basic of concepts: constructive criticism is the best way for an individual to offer actionable advice. If you really love a company's products, the more reason to do so as I would assume the person would want the company to do well.

It goes all ways. Fanbois are fanbois. Windows fanbois are exactly the same. Same for Linux/OSS fanbois, etc.

With regard to the post itself, it is an unusual experience to come across an article on a Win-centric site that actually criticizes Apple in a deservedly (not fanboish) manner and also gives credit to it where due.

There are other points in the keynote that Apple belabored upon as if no equivalents existed in the Windows world that extended the sphere of hypocrisy. Notably, OpenCL. Although I personally prefer open standards (not necessarily open-source), the fact remains that DirectX11 will also offer compute capabilities. It will be very interesting to see how these technologies play out in the market place, given that OpenCL+OpenGL are highly integrated in the same manner that Direct3D 11 and the compute shaders of DirectX11 are. There is much more DirectX knowhow out there, and yet most of the kinds of programmers that would make use of GPGPU are OpenGL developers (CAD, Scientific, etc). Game physics engines being the notable exception in favor of DirectX11.

Moreover, you are absolutely right that MS does a monumental job of QA testing for Windows. It is truly mind-numbing the sheer vastness of the Windows ecosystem that I don't think there is a single other software company that could even come close to building such widely and heterogeneously-deployed software in a way that wouldn't suffer at least 10x the problems Windows has (which taking all of this into account is really remarkable). Linux is an utter mess for so many reasons (GPL driver hate, poor ass QA, and the obvious fact this it is "supposed" to run on the same hardware that Windows runs), and Apple performs QA testing on what must be at most 0.1% of the hardware that MS has to quality test to see if their software runs as expected.

I think the sense of Apple not playing their cards against this ("What was Apple expecting Microsoft to do...") is excessive "poetic justice" or a sense of morality not quite present in the business world (MS, Apple, and almost all others play by the corporate rule book, not an ethical one). Apple views its lack of hugely diverse support commitments as a major strength, and very rightly so. Just like guerilla tactics teach you to play to your strengths even though you may be at a sever disadvantage, like so Apple does and should play in kind. Apple repeatedly parrots the "whole widget" line because the incredibly smaller hardware/software combos it has to test allow it to better focus its QA. This is clearly something that culminates in an improved end-user experience. If some win fanboi comes to debate the validity of this statement (which arguably many mac fanbois use without fully understanding the underlying implications), then think you are also arguing against MS and the vastly superior sum of money MS spends doing the exact same thing in an effort to replicate the same level of reliability.

However a more important strategic ramification of this IMHO is that it allows Apple to take more aggressive action with their developmental roadmaps (relative to their OS). True that they are well aware that they enjoy a very loyal customer base and that in a sense abandoning them both a) sucks and b) can be perceived to a certain extent as "abusing their loyalty". But these thing are of little consequence to the technology itself.. Your point of abandoning PowerPC customers is a reflection of the developmental aggressiveness Apple has been displaying since it launched OS X. An excellent example of this can be found in Snow Leopard itself: Full, single OS distribution 64-bitness.

Only time will tell how the major transition Snow Leopard represents goes (64-bit). However this a great example of Apple's OS development aggressiveness. It is trying to do what MS has been reluctant to do for the longest time. Apple will release a single, 64-bit system and by extension will (if reluctantly) drag along all its developers on to a default 64-bit platform (that will nonetheless retain 32-bit code execution capability). Windows users by and large are still VERY entrenched in a 32-bit world in a time where 4GB of RAM is not even that much for a consumer anymore. Forcing something like this is so much easier for Apple than MS. But be market realities as they may, the end result is that Apple customers will be reaping the benefits of 64-bit computing in earnest way before the larger MS audience is.

Something I notice in the comments that ties into this "agressiveness" I have seen a comment extolling the virtue of XP virtualization on Win 7. I agree that is great, but people here don't seem to be aware that Apple has already done that a long time ago. It seems crazy to think MS's approach is "better" in any way with respect to this point. Just look at why this is being done...

XP virtualization is being offered as a compatibility layer for non-Win 7 apps. It is a compatibility layer across 2 OS versions that don't even have that much of an API incompatibility issue. I mean, its not like its because all Win apps are suddenly WPF based and Win 7 is ditching Win32 APIs (its not) nor is it being offered as a solution to poor driver support (not at all - and for the most part time has helped remedy this situation since Vista launched). In my opinion it speaks volumes of the insane burden MS has in continually supporting the ridiculous volume/diversity of legacy systems + software out there.

Apple did this for what can be debated as more "progressive" reasons in so much as they were a means to improving the Mac experience much more fundamentally. The 680X0 - PowerPC - Intel transitions have all included *transparent* (for the most part - only obvious when looking for Universal binary labeled shrink wrapped boxes - but then again you could run PPC apps through emulation) that were all about improving system performance. You could argue against this by saying that Windows has been x86 all along - but there you would be missing the bigger point.

Abstraction is a winning strategy overtime in programming. There are sooo many examples of this, on all platforms/ language designs, etc. The hardware-independent design of OS X is a HUGE advantage over Windows. Intel/AMD do not have an oligopoly on the future, and in any case that significant innovation does sprout in a form that entails a new ISA, Apple is positioned to school MS on system performance.

An excellent current example is ARM. Take a look at embedded systems. Apple - as the company has stated multiple times publicly - has employed an almost 100% line-for-line port of OS X on the iPhone. You can thank the aforementioned hardware independence for that. Currently, Apple is reaping the benefits of cross-pollination between its mobile OS and its desktop/server counterparts. One good example is Core Data. Android has an embedded SQLite DB. MS WinCE has an embeddable MS SQL variant. iPhone OS also has an embedded SQLite DB. However, OS X has had a wonderful ORM running on top of SQLite for quite some time (since Tiger). Having a thoroughly debugged software solution that is designed for facilitating software development (by greater abstraction once again) and improving performance (as many developers would otherwise forego DB persistence and use other less efficient storage code paths) and being able to quickly transfer it to the iPhone OS is something pretty much nobody else can do at this point (separate code bases for Windows/WinCE, no full-blown os counterparts from Google/RIM/Palm etc). Many, many examples like this one exist (Handwriting recognition, power management, multitouch, speech synthesis, etc etc) Relative to the Windows XP/ Vista / 7 code base, Windows CE is a sideshow-freak that will require very significant massaging to inherit desktop Windows code innovations. In essence yes, Win 7 will have multitouch, but for WinCE (WinMo) to gain it it won't be the same kind of code re-factoring that is so easily done by Apple. Kind of crappy to have to reinvent everything across multiple code bases...

How does this tie into the aggressiveness of MS's OS development? More appropriately I think it Win7's Xp virtualization is a prime example of MS's LACK of aggressiveness (business worlds needs blah blah aside). I mean, come on, MS Research is one of if not the most hard-core CS R&D division in the WORLD. I seriously do not get why they (MS Corporate) are getting trounced on so many levels (for example, IE is an embarrassment of a product, online services suck, even their spam filters are awful, etc) when all along they have this insanely incredible group of TALENTED individuals. My best guesses are bad business calls/strong risk aversion/inflexible corporate culture.

My point with all of this is that, Apple, at the time with very limited resources, have pulled significant transitions time and time again. They have literally bet the company many times over and reaped the benefits. MS is waaay too risk averse to do what it should. Is anyone here seriously going to debate that MS can't pull off what Apple has done so mane times?? I mentioned Microsoft Research because they have what seems to be a kick-ass kernel / OS in development (the fabled Singularity / Midori combo - I'm sure many of you here are acquainted with its existence).

Kill so much legacy support - perhaps revisit OEM partnerships to better establish reference hardware designs that yet remain fairly customizable to aid in MS's QA efforts (Ballmer already said they would do this, new OS would offer a clean break from legacy systems though) while at the same time maintaining API compatibility. If breaking the API's is a must, then enable a seamless virtualization experience like the one in Win7... Essentially, this is the way I see Microsoft using virtualization in a much more progressive way. Right now it is just there so support the ever-growing pile of crap of legacy APIs.

Transition like this would very likely take MUCH longer than Apple's given the huge and diverse Windows installed base but really MS can't advance much with such a bloated OS that has so much legacy code in it. I only wish the small glimmer of hope that XP virtualization may be the beginning of a transition process for MS becomes a reality.

As a final note on the observations on the keynote. Yes there were many statements that were highly questionable. However there clearly was a highlight. GCD. GCD really is an innovation (and a GREAT ONE at that) that has no equivalent on the Windows side. Focusing on these kinds of unique innovations instead of badmouthing a competitor with claims that really don't hold up to even casual scrutiny would have made for a more enjoyable keynote. But well, this sort of marketing tactics seem to work well for Apple which is why I guess they continue to use them. Would like to see MS fire back more effectively. The laptop hunters, while not my particular cup of tea, seem to have hit a chord in the general public, at least according to market research firms.

Regarding some comments (briefly scanned them, too many to read - so sorry if these things have been clarified. Comments to the above and/or below most welcome btw!)

To the commenter that stated that removing a dll is analogous to removing a kext, please make sure you know what you are talking about before spreading misinformation. Kext = Driver, Kext !=.dll. Your argument falls apart once you get that straight. So many differences (in vs out-of-kernel execution, typical usage scenarios (shared code vs driver), etc) make the comparison completely off-base. As Apple correctly states, no DLL Hell on OS X. Get your facts straight.

Also, to the commenter that said that no FS enjoys a unfragmented existence, that is very true, although some do go out of their way (by design) to alleviate the problem. Between Windows and OS X, unarguable overall NTFS is a better FS than they ridiculously outdated HFS+ on OS X. No point of contention there.

However, HFS+ from a user experience in OS X offers lower defragmentation due to a background defraging (for files less than 20Mb, which account for the vast majority of files on a user's HD).

Moreover, Apple's commitment to integrating new technology by being free from corporate customer inertia is pretty clear from the desire to pick up ZFS for OS X. Whether the politics behind the Oracle-Sun merger decide a different fate for ZFS and its current CDDL incarnation is another point entirely. Regardless of its inclusion or exclusion from SL Server, if ZFS results in a no-go for OS X (say, it is re-licensed as GPL by Oracle, or they decide not to license the patents involved) it nonetheless demonstrates Apple's commitment to quick change. NTFS seems likely to be around for quite a while and is quite outdated in comparison to ZFS. Hell, just like OS X has HFS+ (among many other FSs), you guys still have FAT32 lingering around...

The point is moot (with respect to fragmentation only) looking towards the future however, if SSDs improve enough to become an adequate replacement for HDs. SSDs, as you may or may not know, perform better the more fragmented (spread out) their files are. Here, you may not know, as far as is publicly known Win 7 will eventually be ahead of OS X (SSD TRIM command will be supported at some time in Win 7 lifetime, not known with regard to SL).

To those defending the registry (are you insane???): The Registry is quite frankly an outdated system structure that has no justifiable reason for its continued existence (other than the aforementioned compatibility dilemma to support legacy crap). Apple criticizing this kind of flaw is no different than MS criticizing Apple's price tags. Its just really basic logic to try and hit a competitors weaknesses. I wouldn't read too much into it....I can attest that I can build a Win box with comparable hardware specs to a Mac at a lower price. I can also attest to the fact that no such thing as registry rot exists on OS X.

OK, this post got too long, so I will stop here. Feel free to comment!!

Cheers.

I would love to see what they will say when Windows 8 will be shown and Mac OS will be 11 of the same old crap

Could you imagine the outcry from the technology community if Microsoft told customers that they couldn't upgrade from Windows XP or Windows Vista to Windows 7?
[...]
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".

I'm actually happy that they decided to drop PPC support there to focus more on Intel Macs.

They weren't in the same situation at all, Microsoft and Apple. As said, the first Intel macs were released in January 2006, and Snow leopard will be released Sept. 2009. It means the G5 hardware will be more than 3.5 years old now. PPC users won't miss too much because there's no new major feature for the end-user.(even though I somewhat disagree with that, there's a big part that's true).

Also, they couldn't have optimized it so much if they supported PPC users. They needed to make it both 32-bit and 64-bit, and they had to support PPC an Intel too? That makes 4 versions, what you don't see under the hood of Leopard is like that and it has to be really complex. With Snow Leopard, they can reduce the footprint of the apps a lot by removing PPC code, removing universal binaries and PPC binaries and Rosetta and put Intel apps only (though I'm not sure if they removed Rosetta - I bet yes).

When you look at the frequency of OS X releases, it makes things pretty different too, compared to Windows users. While there was XP, Vista and Windows 7, there was Mac OS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 PPC, 10.4 Intel, 10.5 and 10.6. You're always gaining a few new features each time you upgrade. But if you upgrade from XP to Vista for instance, you're gaining many more new features than when you upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 for example, so the update is crucial. Now, Leopard will be nearly 2 years old when Snow Leopard is released. Apple's a good developer, but they can't add 10 billion new features either during that time, compared to MS who had a lot more time on their hands. So you see, PPC users will be stuck with a 2 years old OS, while an XP user would be stuck with an 8 year old OS. That makes a big difference...

About the naming scheme, I don't think they're really wasting hundreds of dollars in man hours into choosing the name of a system. I'm sure they're just looking on Wikipedia to find cat names and Puma, Cheetah, Leopard, etc. pleased to them. They were aware of the existence of Snow Leopard and they chose it because it adds to just being a Leopard. The name Snow Leopard could not be better at all. Now, this is ironic that it can't roar, but in the end, who cares? It's just a funny fact though.

PsykX said,
Could you imagine the outcry from the technology community if Microsoft told customers that they couldn't upgrade from Windows XP or Windows Vista to Windows 7?
[...]
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".

I'm actually happy that they decided to drop PPC support there to focus more on Intel Macs.

They weren't in the same situation at all, Microsoft and Apple. As said, the first Intel macs were released in January 2006, and Snow leopard will be released Sept. 2009. It means the G5 hardware will be more than 3.5 years old now. PPC users won't miss too much because there's no new major feature for the end-user.(even though I somewhat disagree with that, there's a big part that's true).

Also, they couldn't have optimized it so much if they supported PPC users. They needed to make it both 32-bit and 64-bit, and they had to support PPC an Intel too? That makes 4 versions, what you don't see under the hood of Leopard is like that and it has to be really complex. With Snow Leopard, they can reduce the footprint of the apps a lot by removing PPC code, removing universal binaries and PPC binaries and Rosetta and put Intel apps only (though I'm not sure if they removed Rosetta - I bet yes).

When you look at the frequency of OS X releases, it makes things pretty different too, compared to Windows users. While there was XP, Vista and Windows 7, there was Mac OS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 PPC, 10.4 Intel, 10.5 and 10.6. You're always gaining a few new features each time you upgrade. But if you upgrade from XP to Vista for instance, you're gaining many more new features than when you upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 for example, so the update is crucial. Now, Leopard will be nearly 2 years old when Snow Leopard is released. Apple's a good developer, but they can't add 10 billion new features either during that time, compared to MS who had a lot more time on their hands. So you see, PPC users will be stuck with a 2 years old OS, while an XP user would be stuck with an 8 year old OS. That makes a big difference...

About the naming scheme, I don't think they're really wasting hundreds of dollars in man hours into choosing the name of a system. I'm sure they're just looking on Wikipedia to find cat names and Puma, Cheetah, Leopard, etc. pleased to them. They were aware of the existence of Snow Leopard and they chose it because it adds to just being a Leopard. The name Snow Leopard could not be better at all. Now, this is ironic that it can't roar, but in the end, who cares? It's just a funny fact though.

You forget to mention that all these incremental OS X upgrades cost the customer money. It seems apple has discovered easiest way to milk its base for stuff that should have been included in OS X in the first place. But, still it is beneficial for the rest of us.

Now THAT is what I call a winner's post. Great response, PsykX! That is exactly what I had in mind. :)

Apple updates their OS more frequently, and you have a different user base. And, sure Windows 7 is significantly faster, but there is no hiding from the fact that Windows' underlying architecture (registry, etc.) has been quite a mess for a long time, and that will not be changing with Windows 7.

do u have any idea what u r talking about. you sum up the 6yrs (win xp to win7 time) in 3 OS. In fact it is not. you forgot to mention winxp 64bit; winxp media center edition; win for tablet pc (features which OS X totally lacks); windows vista 64bit etc. and now windows 7 32+64 bits.

*"While there was XP, Vista and Windows 7, there was Mac OS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 PPC, 10.4 Intel, 10.5 and 10.6."*

The way u said it then OS x leopard and snow leopard is just the same thing.

I was talking about the mainstream operating systems only.

You can as well remove 10.4 Intel because in fact it does't add anything to the OS even if it was needed. XP 64-bit either, Vista 64-bit either. XP Media Center either. Media Center is in fact a single application from what I have seen. Plus, it isn't included in the mainstream OS. Tablet Windows is not a mainstream OS either. I could have mentioned OS X Server and Windows Server, but they're not mainstream OSes either... Same for OS X Mobile and Windows Mobile.

On another note, there's a 3rd-party MacBook hack that lets you use it as a Tablet Mac. So either OS X supports tablet-stuff, or the 3rd-party hack offers a software with it.

I'm not saying Snow Leopard is the same thing as Leopard. On the contrary, I'm very happy of all the new little features they put inside of it, but it's not a revolution nor a new OS. It's the OS, refined. Like Apple said. It's not the end of the world for PPC users if they don't have these features. It's not like Time Machine or the new Finder or the new Dock.

It's pretty much the same thing for 7 in my head. The taskbar changed, but other than that, it's Vista, refined.

Note that the word "refined" can mean a lot.

msfan said,
do u have any idea what u r talking about. you sum up the 6yrs (win xp to win7 time) in 3 OS. In fact it is not. you forgot to mention winxp 64bit; winxp media center edition; win for tablet pc (features which OS X totally lacks); windows vista 64bit etc. and now windows 7 32+64 bits.

*"While there was XP, Vista and Windows 7, there was Mac OS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 PPC, 10.4 Intel, 10.5 and 10.6."*

The way u said it then OS x leopard and snow leopard is just the same thing.


It seems that you don't realize that those are all just different editions of Windows XP. One operating system.

sonyman said,

It seems that you don't realize that those are all just different editions of Windows XP. One operating system.


Yea you seem to know a lot apparently for those versions of Windows. You idiot, dont throw your mac statements in such forums cos you will leave with a leg up your ass. The amount of things rewritten from scratch and the changes to the kernel done between xp and vista and then vista to 7 are massive. Feel free to ask for a list

@Riva : You got it really wrong... he didn't say XP, Vista and 7 were all different editions of XP. He said XP 32-bits and 64-bits and Media Center and Tablet for different versions of XP, and you can't say this is wrong lol

I think we all recognized that a lot of work was done between XP and Vista and Vista and 7...

The whole BS about Windows 7 being only $49. Doesn't mean a thing. It is only a presale. It is only a limited time offer. The price is only for a new system. After that the price is going to skyrocket to upgrade from Windows Vista to Windows 7. Sorry

If you think Windows Vista is fine then you are not a power user by any means period. There are so many applications that simply don't work. I hate Microsofts way of fixing security holes. It's like Hotmail. Their spam filter sucks and their fix is to turn on maximum protection which only allows emails from people in your contact list to come through. How realistic is that. Windows 7 has it's flaws, it will only be a matter of time before Windows systems are riddled with Malware and people are back to hating Windows. Microsoft can start a new OS from scratch and just use a virtual Windows environment for legacy applications. The Registry was a bad idea and causes systems to slow down over time. Defragmation is so 1988. Here is something to ponder on. Windows crashes because so many vendors are writing drivers to work with the operating system. With OS X, Apple makes the hardware and the operating system thus fewer crashes. Macs have fewer viruses because the OS isn't really designed to host them.

It's fine. What applications don't work? What problems with security holes? What malware? Why should they start over from scratch? What's wrong with the registry? What's wrong with defragmenting?

And my Vista has never crashed in over two years. Apple only makes their cases and they don't protect against software crashes. Macs have fewer virii and malware because they're a small target and most malware is now used for disrupting the internet and sending spam.

Fantastic post man!

Thing we need to remember here lads is that Vista was a complete and utter pile of **** and now since Windows 7 (which i thought would be a piece of **** too like vista) is far beyond out expectations and what with the arrogence of Apple and it's fanboys. It's obvious that Apple are ****ting their pants.

I'm pleased Microsoft have taken their heads out of their **** stained ******** and finally made a decent OS.

End of the week Leopard was vista for macs full of bugs and glitches (yes i used it myself) and Snow leopard is a huge service pack, like Windows 7 to vista.

I think both companys are equal however what Apple are doing is out of being scared.
All Microsoft need to do is release some awsome products (Windows 7 being one and the zune HD being another) and they'll destroy Apple.

We can take this further by stating that the reason why Apple switched to Intel was not because of power comsumption it was to get in with PC users.
Just look at the ways Apple are behaving, intel switches, Boot Camp and now being a dick towards windows 7.
Apple are ****ting their pants guys and girls, if you can't see it then open your ****ing eyes for ****sake!

Fact of the matter is, is does not matter which way you look at this: Apple NEED Microsoft to survive.
Apple NEED Windows to survive.

I know this is off-topic but here goes: The intel switch was done because i honestly believe that Apple WILL licence out OS X to PC

Think about it: Switching to Intel and Bootcamp.

You ask any mac user, most of them are hypocrites. They hate windows yet, they need it installed via bootcamp or have it installed under VMware
OS X is so limiting as an OS, like Linux.
People use Linux because it's fun to get sexual with the BASH (Bourne Again Shell) yet they need Windows or win32 API to run any decent stable applications.


Thats my opinion and snow leopard is crap.

Umm no Microsoft is the one who is ****ing their pants, that is why the big switch from Vista to Windows 7 and it shows. It is Windows ME all over again. By Microsoft going and creating Windows 7 is basically saying, "We put out a crappy product and you bought it...Now we will try to make it better and you will buy it too." Zune is soooo far behind that they are just wasting their time. The most common iPOD user is the Junior High and High School kid. You are not cool unless you have an iPOD. That is how fads work and this is how it has been done for many years.

Tommy DW said,
All Microsoft need to do is release some awsome products (Windows 7 being one and the zune HD being another) and they'll destroy Apple.

We can take this further by stating that the reason why Apple switched to Intel was not because of power comsumption it was to get in with PC users.
Just look at the ways Apple are behaving, intel switches, Boot Camp and now being a dick towards windows 7.
Apple are ****ting their pants guys and girls, if you can't see it then open your ****ing eyes for ****sake!


Apple destroyed, that would be bad by any major standard - but you like monopolies?
Apple switched to intel because ibm couldn't get a powerful processor out the door fitting into a laptop, which at the time was apples main hardware market. That plus to give an incentive for the consumer who was contemplating the mac but sorely needed a pc for some win-only app.
I don't see apple ****ting their pants for anything but sheer excitement over market opportunities. And my eyes are wide open.

I preferred the title of "Marsh, mellow" rather than "Marshymellow" :)

That was a really good article though - very well written and a very good read.

vista's gr8. what more to say. i've been using it for 2 years now and never had a problem, including but not limited to drivers, crashing and viruses etc.. I've also installed win7 RC on my other pc and i loved it so much that i changed my mind about buying a mac. Mac OS X might be the good apple prod., but it is the presentation by steve jobs, what makes it more attractive. (More likely) since steve jobs will not be doing the keynote any more I'll see how well, the apple prod. will be rec'vd. by the people.

oh by the way well written article.... . totally agree

same here, using vista for awhile, never has crashed on its own... always was my own fault for messing with things i shouldn't lol ... i like vista, except its gui, i will be happy when i get to switch to 7

all there responses here are The CLASSICAL apple bashing,
Windows trolls really does not, calm down (don't know whats driving them mad, maybe their non-satisfaction with what they are defending? maybe apple is too threatening ? maybe Microsoft inability to keep up ?
maybe because they are used to afford junk (not all pcs) and believe that they had the best quality until apple came along?! and now thats too pricy for you?! guess what, thats what quality costs!.. even if they are more expensive than the standard high quality margin would be,... its worth it..

the IDEA.. is not that narrow minded to the point that you see it just the same PC components in a shiny overpriced package!! (I won't explain it.. because if you really care to know you would research that honestly yourself than just bashing!..

Macs works, entirely different that what PCs approach is. from a hardware point (as you can easily connect your harddrive to someone else's mac and boot it without installing drivers.. even if the specifications of the two systems are different or has different Peripherals or components cards!, excluding some Mac Pro third Party Expansion cards that require driver installations).. thats of-course regardless of that every piece of software or whatever are completely supported and compatible and trouble free, as if you had a game console and buying games and peripherals for it.., you are sure that games will work and won't be slow.. and its perfect for the console, and that would be it for any upcoming game that will be released for that console.. try imaging that with macs as they are consoles and its software and peripherals are like its games.. (of course excluding the ppc, and any big transition that could come up in the future)

as from an OS point of view, I cannot really compare OSX to windows. it would be unfair for both of them
bit i can say (and i've been using both from a long time) that OSX beats windows hands down when it comes to convenience!! ( there is alot to say here,.. but you can find that out yourself if you care)
also you cannot get that good feeling and sense of joy while using OSX from windows..
as for windows its has its strong points too, as for example being..duh. WINDOWS, and its wide software availability and some other business and professional usage domain strong points..

But as a blind fact, i see OSX as an innovative OS when it comes to how OSX works!..
I can't imagine how are you guys living with yourselves that easily when you are just denying apple innovation, or being innovative!
all you see that their products are garbage, pricy, etc... Don't you ever have something new to say? because I sense that the way here is just bashing.. and no valid arguments..
it looks like the classic arguments when atheists try to deny the existence of god, although they know that GOD is there!
so calm down..

AND I INVITE EVRY Mac USER TO STOP RESPONDING OR WRITING COMMENTS ON NEOWIN... because if thats the way windows trolls's gonna be, then lets leave them talking to themselves!

I don't say that all windows users here are that way though,.. so I hope i've not offended everyone!..
thanks.

Look I repect everyones comments and yes, Windows fans here can get in an uproar. Ive said in the past both Operating systems have their perks. I welcome using a mac sometimes because of its ease of use other times I prefer windows.

Apple is innovative and so is Microsoft.

Both companies will innovate and the other to keep up with use that feature. Its just how it works. Microsoft sees a feature that users of a Mac like so they add it into windows. Apple does the same thing, ITS BUSINESS

But the real issue is that Apples marketing tells me nothing about a Mac other than their arrogant back talk to Windows.

Mac and Windows fanboys will always battle like this

vista is a great operating system, i've never had any problems with it. the only way you could have a problem with vista is if you were trying to run it on a toaster!

apple should call the new os 'snowjob'... since that's exactly what it is.

Well to me the title snow leopard means perfect sense. Its a liter version with all the kinks worked out and its smaller too. It only costs $29 to upgrade. So maybe microsoft should follow this initiative to make windows 7 upgrade for $29 to. And as far as the stabs. Lately both companies are stabbing each other to death with these stupid ads. Shame on both of them. One on vista fail. And the other for expensive hardware. And nether one describing innovation or good features. Thats what ads are supposed to be or so I thought. I will buy snow leopard upgrade though. Speeding up my computer is well worth the $29. I pay more for a females drink at a bar. Or for my buddies. Heck valey parking costs more. So they got it. Happy with that price. Apple your awesome!!!! We love you!!! I remember how solid apple 2 computer was. Trough out high school all my other friends were constantly repairing their pcs. Wether it was hard ware software upgrade went wrong. All nighters trying to fix that crap. I on the other had could focus on study for school. Never had to spend my valuable time. Thanks apple for a smooth school year. Four years of peace. Apple forever love you!!!!!!!.

And maybe Apple should take PCs lead on hardware costs....

Snow Leopard is the same things as going from Vista to 7 yet Apple claims its nothing more than Vista with a few minor changes. Apple is very arrogant and hypocritical and will probably always be so.

And stabbing each other...look, Apple has been slamming the hell out of MS since their "I'm a PC. I'm a Mac" ads. MS released ads saying how much cheaper PCs are and how much more you can get with a PC at a cheaper price. MS did this TACTFULLY and with TASTE. Apple doesnt know the meaning of tact at all. MS also released ads saying what their product can do and how easy it is. Remember the ads where they showed how easy it was for little kids to use Windows? Apple has yet to tell anything about OSX and what it can do. Also, MS never came out at an event and publicly slammed Apple and their products.

Vista is not as bad as people (media) play it out to be. Actually I have had n problems with it what so ever.

Where on earth did you hear that Windows 7 is going to be $200 to upgrade? The latest reports show way cheaper.
Also remember MS had a big switch from the Windows 3.1 days to Windows 95.
Yes sooner or later Microsoft will ditch the current kernel and come up with something new, but they have their reasons for keeping it especially for legacy users. I don't know a lot about software coding, but yes not having the registry in OSX and the ability to drag and drop to install an app is nice however the current system works for Windows.

The problem is and the problem that has always been is that people judge the book by the cover. Windows 7 for my experience is by far the best release of Windows to date even in its beta stage it was great.

I am both a Windows and Mac user, and what Apple talked about yesterday is the same old crap they have been saying for years. And the thing that still gets me is that Snow Leopard is a minor upgrade, but yet Apple is touting it like a full fledged new OS.
Both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are based off their predecessors.
Hell their are features in Snow Leopard that make me wonder were Apple got their ideas from, Expose on the Dock????

Neither OS is perfect and I have my share of Problems with OSX just like previous versions of Windows

gamestargrinder said,
Where on earth did you hear that Windows 7 is going to be $200 to upgrade? The latest reports show way cheaper.
Also remember MS had a big switch from the Windows 3.1 days to Windows 95.
Yes sooner or later Microsoft will ditch the current kernel and come up with something new, but they have their reasons for keeping it especially for legacy users. I don't know a lot about software coding, but yes not having the registry in OSX and the ability to drag and drop to install an app is nice however the current system works for Windows.

The problem is and the problem that has always been is that people judge the book by the cover. Windows 7 for my experience is by far the best release of Windows to date even in its beta stage it was great.

I am both a Windows and Mac user, and what Apple talked about yesterday is the same old crap they have been saying for years. And the thing that still gets me is that Snow Leopard is a minor upgrade, but yet Apple is touting it like a full fledged new OS.
Both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are based off their predecessors.
Hell their are features in Snow Leopard that make me wonder were Apple got their ideas from, Expose on the Dock????

Neither OS is perfect and I have my share of Problems with OSX just like previous versions of Windows



Why should MS ditch NT? It's not exactly old or out of date. It's much more modern than BSD, that's for sure. I mean, really. Apple may have made the switch to a genuine multitasking, multiuser, reliable system more recently than MS, but that doesn't mean they used a brand new core when they did it.

I registered just so that I could comment on this post -- so you've made an impact.

I think that you're missing the overall point. Regardless of how the media painted Vista, it was terrible. It was a terrible operating system from the gate, and Windows had to play catch up to make it work decently between service packs.

Now, they're moving to Windows 7, charging two hundred dollars to upgrade (I'll point out that for someone with Leopard, the upgrade cost to Snow Leopard is $29) and it's just 'improvements' over Windows Vista.

I wish they had the guts to do what Apple did with OS9-OSX. Yeah, it didn't work out too well for Apple until the first few patches for OS X but in the end, it turned out to be one of the best moves they made. It's a modern operating system, with modern foundation. Windows is still running under code from windows 98 and even if they've managed to cover it up well enough in Windows 7, it's still going to keep coming back to bite them.

Sooner or later, they're going to have to choose to keep allowing older software and hardware to work, or to make a giant leap forward. I don't understand the problem with having older software and hardware stick with Windows 7 or whatever the last supported operating system will be (much like Leopard being the last operating system for PPC support).

Keith Kurson said,
I registered just so that I could comment on this post -- so you've made an impact.

I think that you're missing the overall point. Regardless of how the media painted Vista, it was terrible. It was a terrible operating system from the gate, and Windows had to play catch up to make it work decently between service packs.

Now, they're moving to Windows 7, charging two hundred dollars to upgrade (I'll point out that for someone with Leopard, the upgrade cost to Snow Leopard is $29) and it's just 'improvements' over Windows Vista.

I wish they had the guts to do what Apple did with OS9-OSX. Yeah, it didn't work out too well for Apple until the first few patches for OS X but in the end, it turned out to be one of the best moves they made. It's a modern operating system, with modern foundation. Windows is still running under code from windows 98 and even if they've managed to cover it up well enough in Windows 7, it's still going to keep coming back to bite them.

Sooner or later, they're going to have to choose to keep allowing older software and hardware to work, or to make a giant leap forward. I don't understand the problem with having older software and hardware stick with Windows 7 or whatever the last supported operating system will be (much like Leopard being the last operating system for PPC support).

I've been using vista 64 since rtm, i've never once thought it was terrible. Having said that, i've never thought it was brilliant either. I run high end hardware so i guess that masks some of the speed issues some people experienced, but i would never say it was a terrible OS.

It was terrible? I have been running Vista Ultimate 64-bit since the day it was released and have not had one issue, don't generalize that Vista is a complete failure based on media reports, try things yourself (I'm sure others here can give similar feedback).

I believe Windows 7 Professional Upgrade pricing is $99.99, get your facts straight before you start your rant please. (refer to previous leaked article on Neowin: http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/05/l...pgrade-pricing)

How do you figure supporting legacy systems is going to come back to bite Microsoft, that's a nice general statement. These strides you speak of regarding OS X 10.6 (and 10.5), they are indeed great, but let's not forget they're coming years after the technology has already been around.

Thanks for registering and welcome to Neowin.

Well as others have said the upgrade wont be 200 dollars, and Vista, 7, and XP are based on NT not 9x.

MS did make the same move with Vista as Apple did with OS X. It started with XP by switching to one core codebase of NT, and with Vista a TON of under the hood changes for the future (hence the problems in the first few years of its release for some). OS X was no different and it wasn't until 10.2 that it was decent to use day to day.

MS couldnt make the change overnight because of their desire to support their legacy customers and businesses around the world, Apple doesn't have to think twice about that.

first off Windows 7 was based on NT3.1 not dos (windows 9x ,windows me)

your argument rendered invalid!

Keith Kurson said,
I registered just so that I could comment on this post -- so you've made an impact.

I think that you're missing the overall point. Regardless of how the media painted Vista, it was terrible. It was a terrible operating system from the gate, and Windows had to play catch up to make it work decently between service packs.

Now, they're moving to Windows 7, charging two hundred dollars to upgrade (I'll point out that for someone with Leopard, the upgrade cost to Snow Leopard is $29) and it's just 'improvements' over Windows Vista.

I wish they had the guts to do what Apple did with OS9-OSX. Yeah, it didn't work out too well for Apple until the first few patches for OS X but in the end, it turned out to be one of the best moves they made. It's a modern operating system, with modern foundation. Windows is still running under code from windows 98 and even if they've managed to cover it up well enough in Windows 7, it's still going to keep coming back to bite them.

Sooner or later, they're going to have to choose to keep allowing older software and hardware to work, or to make a giant leap forward. I don't understand the problem with having older software and hardware stick with Windows 7 or whatever the last supported operating system will be (much like Leopard being the last operating system for PPC support).

Windows has a MUCH larger user base that OSX. If MS were to just redo their OS and drop support and functionality for older versions, thousands of companies and millions of consumers would be up in arms and ****ed off. Think about a company that has to replace and upgrade every single system/server/software in order to get the latest and greatest. Any idea how expensive that is??????? Apple can get away with this since the people who use Macs are MUCH LOWER than people use Windows.

The main issue with Vista was driver support which was resolved soon after the release of Vista. People also bitched and moaned that they had to upgrade certain hardware in order to use Vista. So in a sense, MS did try and drop support for older systems/hardware and look what happened. Vista is fine, works fun, runs fine, and I had no issues on the several systems I have it installed on.

$200 for the upgrade cost is just rumor and MS has not confirmed that price yet. Granted it will probably be more than what Apple is charging but lets not go in to costs differences between Mac and PC...ok? :)


Keith Kurson said,
I registered just so that I could comment on this post -- so you've made an impact.

I think that you're missing the overall point. Regardless of how the media painted Vista, it was terrible. It was a terrible operating system from the gate, and Windows had to play catch up to make it work decently between service packs.

Now, they're moving to Windows 7, charging two hundred dollars to upgrade (I'll point out that for someone with Leopard, the upgrade cost to Snow Leopard is $29) and it's just 'improvements' over Windows Vista.

I wish they had the guts to do what Apple did with OS9-OSX. Yeah, it didn't work out too well for Apple until the first few patches for OS X but in the end, it turned out to be one of the best moves they made. It's a modern operating system, with modern foundation. Windows is still running under code from windows 98 and even if they've managed to cover it up well enough in Windows 7, it's still going to keep coming back to bite them.

Sooner or later, they're going to have to choose to keep allowing older software and hardware to work, or to make a giant leap forward. I don't understand the problem with having older software and hardware stick with Windows 7 or whatever the last supported operating system will be (much like Leopard being the last operating system for PPC support).

I'll skip the Vista bashing in the first part of your statement and get to the relevant points.

First, Windows 7 upgrade isn't going to cost $200. If I remember reading correctly it was more like $49.


Secondly you claim the OS9 to OSX transition a change to a modern operating system, with modern foundation. To quote from the OS X Wikipedia entry:

OS X [...]is a Unix-based operating system, built on technologies developed at NeXT between the second half of the 1980s and Apple's purchase of the company in early 1996.
And while OS X and Windows alike may be built on decades old technology, neither are more than a mere acquaintance of their ancestral counterparts. Pot, meet kettle. Also, Windows Vista nor Windows 7 are based on Windows 9x. they're both based on Windows 2000 which was a derivative of the Windows NT branch.

Finally, the attrition of older software and hardware has been taking place with each version of Windows although more dramatically with Windows Vista. However, when 90% of the market is running on your software, you can't just toss out their needs without a care and hope that they're ok with it. Companies run old software, run it into the ground, beat it like a dead horse, and grind every minute out of it that they can. Why? Money! Software upgrades can be a considerable burden for companies and consumers alike. So when your market base screams "we need to be able to use our software" a responsible OS manufacturer does everything they can to oblige. With Windows 7 the answer is XP virtualization, which works VERY well I might add.

Other than that, welcome to Neowin! Hope you'll stick around and participate in our wonderful community.

Shane Pitman said,
I'll skip the Vista bashing in the first part of your statement and get to the relevant points.

First, Windows 7 upgrade isn't going to cost $200. If I remember reading correctly it was more like $49.


Secondly you claim the OS9 to OSX transition a change to a modern operating system, with modern foundation. To quote from the OS X Wikipedia entry:
And while OS X and Windows alike may be built on decades old technology, neither are more than a mere acquaintance of their ancestral counterparts. Pot, meet kettle. Also, Windows Vista nor Windows 7 are based on Windows 9x. they're both based on Windows 2000 which was a derivative of the Windows NT branch.

Finally, the attrition of older software and hardware has been taking place with each version of Windows although more dramatically with Windows Vista. However, when 90% of the market is running on your software, you can't just toss out their needs without a care and hope that they're ok with it. Companies run old software, run it into the ground, beat it like a dead horse, and grind every minute out of it that they can. Why? Money! Software upgrades can be a considerable burden for companies and consumers alike. So when your market base screams "we need to be able to use our software" a responsible OS manufacturer does everything they can to oblige. With Windows 7 the answer is XP virtualization, which works VERY well I might add.

Other than that, welcome to Neowin! Hope you'll stick around and participate in our wonderful community. :)

Great response. And coming from a business perspective, it's always about the money. Businesses hate spending money on IT. I know, I am an admin of a company (hvac&r) that complains (saying it nicely) on why their 10 year old software won't work on certain newer OS's. I was even asked about switching to Mac's, until I told them the costs that would be incurred because of the switch over. That changed their mind very quickly. It always comes down to money. Period.

It's amazing how much this article has shaken a few people. It's like how this was the shot heard around the world, but it was an article, with very valid points.

I think apple makes statements like that just so they get some publictiy or they would be long forgoten by now.

SoLoR1 said,
I think apple makes statements like that just so they get some publictiy or they would be long forgoten by now.

yeah, they're a tiny little crustation in a rather large sea.

I rarely comment on articles, I usually just read and move on. However, I had to comment to say, this is an excellent article! It's about time someone said something aloud.

Apple were hardly going to say how great 7 is were they, it called marketing/PR always try and make the opposition look bad.

The point is they don't need to say a word about Windows 7 (bad/good). It's called shotty marketing when all you can do is bash the competition. I have a MBP and love it but Apple's ads and comments in their keynote just tick me off. Focus on the good in your own product.

m.keeley said,
Apple were hardly going to say how great 7 is were they, it called marketing/PR always try and make the opposition look bad.

You really missed the point here dude....

I saw the keynote and their point was that Windows 7 was based on Vista and that was bad whereas, using some twisted logic, SL being based on Leopard was great.

...and you missed the point. Did you not hear them bashing Windows 7 for being a clean-up of Vista while they said Snow Leopard was a clean-up of Leopard out of the other side of their mouths?

Great article, I do not use Macs myself, but honestly have been turned off by their pricing and advertisements. They do have a lot of great products and have a niche, but its very very small.

This though...

"But Apple needs to learn how to promote their technologies on their own merits, instead of acting like the pretty girl in high school that lobs insults at the ugly one to make itself feel better. "

=PRICELESS

This is by far one of the best, well written, and informative articles I have ever read on Neowin. Good work! Two thumbs up.

Im just to say it is a bad article (even for the latest average on neowin).

It is just a "nerd rage" article, when a "journalist" whine about some claim, not because it is fake but because it is evidently true.

One things is true :Apple have the "balls" to jump over 64bits right now.

To blame about if a snow leopard is or is not a real tiger/or whatever and if is able to roar is immature.

Just get a grip.

The "balls" to jump over 64-bits now? Wow, it's about time Apple even stepped up to the 64-bit plate, MS has had it since XP. Way to show up late to the party and act like it's revolutionary (typing this on a MBP btw, paralleled with XP Pro).

Magallanes said,
Im just to say it is a bad article (even for the latest average on neowin).

It is just a "nerd rage" article, when a "journalist" whine about some claim, not because it is fake but because it is evidently true.

One things is true :Apple have the "balls" to jump over 64bits right now.

To blame about if a snow leopard is or is not a real tiger/or whatever and if is able to roar is immature.

Just get a grip.

so, your only defense is that "apple have the balls to jump to 64 bit" ?
you do realise 64bit windows has been available to home users since xp64? the main reason for the slow uptake was vendor support, NOT microsoft.... did you really expect MS to turn its back on it's 32bit userbase overnight? sounds like a rather dumb move to me, would be fine if they had a tiny tiny portion such as 10%, oh wait... isn't that apple's market share? The point is that Microsoft have supported 64bit for years, as an option should a user decide to take it. Your argument is completely wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about.

"Apple has the 'balls' to jump over 64 bits right now."

Huh? There have been 64-bit versions of Windows out since before XP. And perhaps you'd like to explain what's not true?

Magallanes said,
Im just to say it is a bad article (even for the latest average on neowin).

It is just a "nerd rage" article, when a "journalist" whine about some claim, not because it is fake but because it is evidently true.

One things is true :Apple have the "balls" to jump over 64bits right now.

To blame about if a snow leopard is or is not a real tiger/or whatever and if is able to roar is immature.

Just get a grip.


Worst post ever. Why do you even bother.

Apple have the balls to fully go 64 bit? Windows has had fully 64 bit itanium (IA64) versions for years. Oh and it will be X64, not full 64 bit, the same X64 architecture used for 64 bit Windows versions

Did you notice the title of this article? It wasn't "Why MS/Windows Rocks and Apple/Mac Sucks" or anything close. He's not whining about claims - he took the time to research the points, THINK both sides through, then presented point & counter-point. Take off the iShades, read the article again, and digest the message.
Then again, if one of the few things of substance you got out of this was the reference to the Snow Leopard's inability to roar, then, well...

I'm pretty impressed with the amount of comments this article has, but above all the incompetence of how someone people [specially macFanboyz] think an OS works. I am pretty sure there are people on this forum that are running WindowsXP without any Antivirus for some years, or having any Registry/DLL problem[I know I am one]. I get better performance from a Windows machine then a mac, I am not sure why, maybe it has to to with macs innovative breath taking graphical effects[which most are taken from the opensource community], but the bottom line is Apple = Dictatorship we see it on the iphone all the time, and mac users love it not knowing that they are willingly giving up their rights. I don't prefer one over the other, when someone asks me which one is better I simple ask about money and what they want to do with it, otherwise I install Ubuntu. :o)
Because Freedom is Meaningful.

ps. I love the competition, Apple is pushing Windows to make things better from all aspect, and for that i am grateful. +1 for Apple

Lw011 said,
I am pretty sure there are people on this forum that are running WindowsXP without any Antivirus for some years, or having any Registry/DLL problem (I know I am one).

+1

No Antivirus on the PC for 18 months now, and I have never needed a registry-cleeaner. I don't even defrag the partitions altough XP doesn't do it automatically as Vista does.

Apple - fools.

i despise apple and all it stands for. The company and it's consumers have some kind of unfounded elitism complex which appears to be based on very little other than a better UI with some polished curvy hardware. Brand Snobs is all they are. They're not even in the same league as Microsoft.

I do however wish MS would sort out the inconsistent and sometimes clunky UI issues, surely it can't be so difficult? If they released product as well polished as apple did, nothing apple ever said would matter as they'd be insignificant. Windows 7 is a step in the right direction and I hope it continues.

I hate to nitpick, but a Snow Leopard (Uncia uncia) is a different species than an ordinary Leopard (Panthera pardus)

As a PowerPC Mac mini owner its amazing to me how little uproar there is over Apple dropping PowerPC support so early. I understand computers age and technology changes. I'm fine with the fact I might need to add more memory or a bigger hard drive, but to tell me the computer I bought 4 years ago is no longer supported is ridiculous. I'm glad to see someone else call them out for it. This is one of the reasons you don't see more companies won't buy Apple computers.

As said by many already... this article is excellent... Mac fanboys shouldn't really have too many complaints... the article is fair, factual and interesting.

Good article. See, it is possible to not care for an organisation's business practices and still enjoy using their products.

@x-byte - We are using essentially the same NTFS since version 3.0 which was used for Windows 2000. The current version which is 3.1 only had some (very) minor changes.

And how can you say it's fine for an OS to let 3rd party software cripple it down in the way that it happens on Windows?

Perhaps you also think it's fine for you to need to buy or use 3 different types of software to keep your, supposedly fastest and most secure Windows, system secure, and a couple more to keep your system running as well as it should by cleaning your registry, temp files, and defragging your disk.

PS - yes, I'm fully aware that just because OS X doesn't have any seriously threatening viruses it doesn't mean it's secure.

Griffith.pt said,
@x-byte - We are using essentially the same NTFS since version 3.0 which was used for Windows 2000. The current version which is 3.1 only had some (very) minor changes.

And how can you say it's fine for an OS to let 3rd party software cripple it down in the way that it happens on Windows?

Perhaps you also think it's fine for you to need to buy or use 3 different types of software to keep your, supposedly fastest and most secure Windows, system secure, and a couple more to keep your system running as well as it should by cleaning your registry, temp files, and defragging your disk.

PS - yes, I'm fully aware that just because OS X doesn't have any seriously threatening viruses it doesn't mean it's secure.

Did you read the 4th paragraph of this article? If not do so.

And in no way did I say it was OK. It's the reality now. You just can't kill the registry and start over. As the article states, Microsoft isn't Apple.

Griffith.pt said,
Perhaps you also think it's fine for you to need to buy or use 3 different types of software to keep your, supposedly fastest and most secure Windows, system secure, and a couple more to keep your system running as well as it should by cleaning your registry, temp files, and defragging your disk.


What are you talking about? Yes, you should use an anti-virus program, which you can get for free. That's it. Windows defrags automatically, cleaning the registry ist pointless and NOT NEEDED, the same with temp files (which you get in OSX too over time btw.).

Griffith.pt said,
@x-byte - We are using essentially the same NTFS since version 3.0 which was used for Windows 2000. The current version which is 3.1 only had some (very) minor changes.

Thats because its so powerful! Just because its been around for a bit it does not make it poor. It has had extra functionality added by the OS bolts into NTFS to allow extra features but no major problems with legacy stuff.
NTFS is very very very good and very powerful especially with permissions.

Hmm, I wonder. If NTFS was that inferior, I wonder why Windows users don't have to "repair disk permissions" every now and then.

ZeroHour said,
Thats because its so powerful! Just because its been around for a bit it does not make it poor. It has had extra functionality added by the OS bolts into NTFS to allow extra features but no major problems with legacy stuff.
NTFS is very very very good and very powerful especially with permissions.

You obviously read nothing about WinFS otherwise you'd be upset as I was when they ditched it. It's not about quality for Microsoft anymore, it's about what's most lucrative to them and I'm fine with companies wanting to make a profit but if you take Longhorn's supposed feature set, and compared it to Vista's, you'd realize that what we got was a shinny look with 3D acceleration rather than a new filesystem that was incredibly faster and would allow, among other things, almost seamless indexation, near instant searches and virtually no file fragmentation.

Instead they gave you the "wow effect".

I've been a Windows user all my life, and I use an iMac at work. Mac OS X is far from perfect, it's just another OS with it's strong and weak points, like any other. But what they've done in the last 2 OS versions to improve it's usability and make it better is more than what Microsoft has done for Windows in decades.

That's why *I* personally get excited when I hear about a new OS X, because I know it will make my life easier and not just mean I have to get new hardware, which usually is the case with Windows.

Windows 7 is the first of, what I hope will be many, OS releases that actually improve usability and become easier/faster to use rather than just changing most menus around for no reason other than to try to make it look like a new product. But it's still only a shadow of what Longhorn was meant to be. And 7 is, in essence, just a Windows 2000 with a few more software layers on top. I'm fine with that, 7 is a good OS, I use it at home, but it could have been much more if M$ would have let it.

Oy, with the WinFS junk! What is it and what were you expecting from it? It was not a new filesystem. It was a metadata overlay for NTFS and it didn't work. There are a lot of features that were probably removed from Leopard and Snow Leopard because they didn't work, but we'll never hear about them because Apple likes to "think secret."

Apple remind me of a small pooch that has to yap and bark more because it's insecure and so tiny.

It's embarrassing to see them behave this way. I disliked Vista so much I hardly used it but Windows 7 is great in comparison from what I've seen. It's a pretty underhanded tactic to try and put people off trying it before it's even out. How about they start touting the feature of their own products, which are actually quite impressive. They don't need to whine and bitch at MS like little girls.

In Apple's defense (and at the risk of being torched by all the people reading this) even though they were quite arrogant yesterday, I would like to point out that what I felt they "spiked" the most were the underlying technical "features" of Windows, which Microsoft has failed to improve upon time and time again.

We are still stuck with the registry system that has far outlived it's purpose and is still unrefined (who doesn't buy or use a registry cleaning software every now and then), and we're still stuck with the NTFS system which was due for replacement with Vista (does anyone remember WinFS?).

These are things we, or at least I, expect Microsoft to "fix" one day in the future and for the biggest part the reason they don't is because it would take them a long time to do so.

That is why Vista took so long to come out, and why it seemed like a rough-edged unfinished product when they released it. I remember trying a few of the Longhorn early builds and being impressed by how "snappy" the product was back then, the only thing I thought it needed back then was better driver support.

When Vista's Aero was announced, to me that felt like they were covering up the system's flaws with a new pretty look. And even though the general opinion is that Vista is bad (I've had a customer that could barely stand on his two legs tell me that), a lot of people still bought it and used it (myself included after a certain point).

The way Microsoft handled the market was by making it hard or impossible (at some times) to "downgrade" to XP, and by blackmailing (or putting a carrot on a stick for) users to get Vista so they can access some of the new features which were deemed "Vista only". (Halo 2 PC anyone?)

In the same way that Apple fanboys are blind to their products flaws (in their dictionary: features) I hope the people reading this understand that fanboyism goes both ways.

We are still stuck with the registry system that has far outlived it's purpose and is still unrefined (who doesn't buy or use a registry cleaning software every now and then), and we're still stuck with the NTFS system which was due for replacement with Vista (does anyone remember WinFS?).

The registry is perfectly fine. It's not Windows fault that programs doesn't clean up after itself. And NTFS have evolved since the first revision. Just because the name is the same, doesn't mean it the same beneath.

Griffith.pt said,
We are still stuck with the registry system that has far outlived it's purpose and is still unrefined (who doesn't buy or use a registry cleaning software every now and then), and we're still stuck with the NTFS system which was due for replacement with Vista (does anyone remember WinFS?).

You don't ever need registry cleaning software. People who think you do are incompetent.

Also, NTFS was NEVER scheduled to get a replacement. WinFS was a database that sat on top of it. The OS and the WinFS database and all of your stuff would have always been on NTFS.

Also also, I can't believe the NTFS hate. It's arguably a superior filesystem to both HFS+ and ext3. Given that Apple didn't even mention ZFS, it just reeks of hypocrisy.

You don't even need to clean the registry. That's typical FUD right there. The registry can get bombarded with trash, it doesn't matter. Windows only loads the parts it needs and doesn't care for old, useless entries.

It seems that Apple is getting caught up in its own self-inflated image. If they keep this up, Microsoft could attack that image by propagating the stereotype that Mac users are fanatical and immature using commercials. Something like:

Opening: Group presentation, the presenter is going over a Powerpoint presentation on a laptop.
Audience of about two dozen people is seated quietly, most are attentive, except for one guy on a Macbook, who suddenly says, Hey, when are you gonna stop using Losedows and get a real OS?
The audience around the guy look at him like he's a douche.
Fade to dark grey.
Fade in white text: idiots (subtle emphasis on the 'i').
The end.

Attacking the users is a pure ad hominem, you could try the fading stereotype that OS X is a Fisher Price OS.

I think a better one would be something like:

Opening: Same two old characters standing next to each other, one with a PC laptop and one with a Macbook.
PC guy: 'Check out my new laptop running Windows 7.'
Mac guy: 'Nice. But my new Macbook is better.'
PC guy: 'Really? How so?'
Mac guy: 'Well it's shiny, feels nice, and it's an Apple!'
PC guy: 'But mine costs half as much, runs more things, runs them faster, and looks just as nice.'
Mac guy: *squirming* 'Yeah.... but mine is an Apple!'
PC guy: 'Mmmm hmmmm...' *looks at Mac guy like he's a douche*
Fade to dark grey.
Fade in white text: 'Don't be THAT guy.'

Kudos said,
Attacking the users is a pure ad hominem, you could try the fading stereotype that OS X is a Fisher Price OS.

Wait, thought that distinction belonged to XP. :P

Yes well done on the article, i was booing at home when they were making stupid little digs at MS and 7.
It's almost like you can't be interested in tech any more without having to get involved in some ridiculous bitching.

Great article. Reminds me why I visit Neowin. Although this editorial is the only one I really liked so far. Keep up the good work.

I think most people in the audience know how good Windows 7 is as there were quite a few groans whilst they were taking cheap shots at it.
So maybe now Apple will take notice and at least get their information right before they go criticizing Windows again...

Dont get why Apple would bother wasting developer's precious time taking another stab at vista. If anything MS gets the free publicity.

-1 Apple

Did anyone ever stop to realize just how many times they said "<insert app or situation here" is <insert number>x faster in Snow Leopard than Leopard..." over and over again. If that isn't concrete proof - right from the mouth(s) of Apple itself these days - that Leopard was broken from the gitgo (possibly far more so than Vista ever was in some respects), then I have no idea what it is...

Just kept me giggling every time one of the speakers would rattle off such a performance increase. Do they ever stop to think that, on basically the same hardware, with such increases, that there is something really really wrong with the way it was done the first time out?

I wonder... man that Reality Distortion Field has lingering effects even when Steve Jobs ain't even around... wow...

How did apple cut down the OS by 6 gigs? well...for one...they removed the 4 gigs of printer drivers thats loaded up by default with leopard. ooooh the humanity!

But Apple needs to learn how to promote their technologies on their own merits, instead of acting like the pretty girl in high school that lobs insults at the ugly one to make itself feel better.

Right on the button. I've been saying this over and over and over ever since those ridiculous, smug Mac vs PC adverts came about. I dreaded the moment whilst I was following the keynote updates when Bertrand Serlet came out on stage and started with the Windows bashing. FFS - tell us why OSX is great. Not why Windows is bad!

They really need to stop using him in keynotes - he's just making Apple look like complete idiots.

Chicane-UK said,
They really need to stop using him in keynotes - he's just making Apple look like complete idiots.

I've seen keynotes where Jobs did the same thing.

T.W. said,
Windows Vista is bad. Apple is right on. And this is coming from a Windows user.

I dont think vista is bad. Its bloated and big and sometimes a bit stupid but in no way is it comparable to other disaster OS's such as Win ME.

Apple provide simplistic products for simplistic people who can't be bothered to learn technology. That's fine if that's what you want... but apple comparing their extremely limited product with the likes of Windows with it's vast hardware support and infinite uses in the real world is so far out of whack it's funny.

So, you can make media compilations easily? great, can you run POS terminals, airport systems, traffic systems, etc etc etc. The reality here is that there are consumers who want an easy life, apple cater for these people by providing closed shop solutions, THEY dictate how you use the device, what you do on it and when [iphone]. They make all the hardware and you pay what they tell you to add that to your system. I guess that model is required to keep things simple for your mum and dad or whoever it is that's trying to use the simplified device. For some obscure reason this "apple is better than a pc" argument surfaced, how the hell can it be better when you compare the 1 apple approved overpriced widget with the 10,000 options available of said widget for the PC?

There was a guy in germany once who tried to take over the world......

You can do anything with OS X you can with Windows except get viruses and worms.
Apple is providing a solution to those who dont want to be tied into microsoft junk.
The problem is Everyone is so anti MSft or anti Apple.
I love all the praise for win 7 and i remember hearing the same thing before Vista was released now look at the hate for vista.

I have a roommate who uses vista and have used it. Where does anyone get that windows can do more then Mac? I am not bashing Windows there is enough of that i just am asking?
I have used both i prefer Macs they work better and are simpler to use. I dont get viruses i dont get crashes and while the mac is not 100% trouble free it sure is better then windows.

I do wish apple would promote what makes os x great. its stability its trouble and virus free system and the fact its based on Unix a OS that is rock solid and has been used in companies and schools for 50 years and is still used today.
Apple has a great product and has some great programs such as ilife, final cut and appature but does not promote those.
I love the Get a Mac ads i think that they are funny and provide comic relief during the shows. Some of the ads im sure are nothing more then that but they do poke fun at windows and hit them where it hurts.
The one that i like is the elimination ad. The ad is so true. And is poking directly at the laptop FAKE ads that msft produce. The thing i hate about those ads are msft is trying to make it seem as though they are real people but they have shown that these are actors and the ads are not real people in real situations.

If you want a computer that is trouble free and does not get viruses and crashes and so forth then your left with a Mac.

SlackerRadio said,
If you want a computer that is trouble free and does not get viruses and crashes and so forth then your left with a Mac.

Or being a user who knows what they are doing and use a little common sense.

SlackerRadio said,
You can do anything with OS X you can with Windows except get viruses and worms.

I stopped reading there, as I figured the rest of this article would be biased junk.

But then I figured I might keep on reading, just to drive the point home.

SlackerRadio said,
The thing i hate about those ads are msft is trying to make it seem as though they are real people but they have shown that these are actors and the ads are not real people in real situations.

REALITY CHECK: You think Apple drew people at random from their fanbase to be a part of their commercials? You really do? If so, then Jobs can be proud of the work he did towards his fanbase.

Dude, they're ACTORS, just like the MS/PC ads. Insinuating anything else is nothing short of preposterous.

Last but not least, let's have a small comparison of two of your quotes.

EXHIBIT A:

SlackerRadio said,
I have used both i prefer Macs they work better and are simpler to use. I dont get viruses i dont get crashes and while the mac is not 100% trouble free it sure is better then windows.

EXHIBIT B:

SlackerRadio said,
If you want a computer that is trouble free and does not get viruses and crashes and so forth then your left with a Mac.

Look at the bold parts, and be the judge. Elaborate excuses and explanations on that matter will only demonstrate further the lack of consistency.

Nice article.

Being a Microsoft user, Apple's arrogance and marketing strategies do irk me sometimes which I find ironic. Isn't the point of their marketing supposed to make me want to swap to Apple products? Talk about epic fail. I guess it's the nubs and technologically ignorant that will be persuaded by these types of campaigns which can only be a good thing - less useless posts complaining about apparent problems and inadequacies of non-Apple products.

But on the other hand I am glad that Apple is around. They do come up with some decent innovations from time to time, and this in turn forces the other vendors to sit up and take note. This can only lead to better products for us consumers. Imagine if Microsoft had a 100% monopoly of the OS market - I daresay Windows innovation would not be progressing at the same rate that it is today. I can only assume that Apple is 'bashing' Windows 7 because it's about the only thing that they can do to try and break the free flow of positive press that Windows 7 is receiving. Such comments only serve to perpetrate the mentality that must be floating around the offices of Apple of late - 'we probably won't win too much in a head to head comparison with Win7, so let's just blatantly jeer at it instead'. Jealous much?

I can see the merits in having a simplistic OS - I bought my GF one. But I on the other hand like to tinker and have the freedom to change my user experience as I see fit. I do hope however that they continue to survive so that I as a Microsoft consumer may continue to benefit =)

From the first day that Snow Leopard was announced long ago (well it sure seems like a long time ago given how fast Apple typically cycles through old stuff and throws it away in favor of something new), I've been asking the question posed in this article which is:

If Apple has stated that Snow Leopard is one big bug and performance fix for Leopard (which is what it is), and people seem to cheer 'em for it (which is what Cult members do), then how come when Microsoft does the same thing - by "fixing" Vista (ok, I shouldn't put it that way but intelligent folk reading this know what I mean) and releasing Windows 7 soon (after a 2+ year development cycle, back to what it was pre-XP days, so normal operation) which "fixes" a lot of the niggling issues that many folks have with Vista as well as providing new features, some of which are pretty awesome really - how come Microsoft just gets leered for it?

Same principle, but because it's Microsoft, oh geez... let 'em have it.

What a bunch of maroons. I was watching the "live" MacRumors blogging of this event as it happened this morning, and as soon as that freak Frenchman Bertrand even mentioned Vista that was enough for me to say "See ya... idiots" because... once again, the cardinal rule of marketing is you don't mention the competition in your ads, ever. Something Apple just can't seem to comprehend.

Sure, you can go against the grain, but... it's like sandpaper, and sooner or later you're gonna get ground right outta the game and left in a lot of pain.

In spite of today's announcements, and the Cult members foaming at the bit, and the Kool-Aid flowing freely from the tap that Steve Jobs built... Apple is hurting, they have been for some time now. Too bad more people can't see it, but I do, and a few others... people think they're on top of the world right now, and they're not.

Watch and see...

The really amusing thing about PPC support being dropped is that one of the "pro's" that Apple users like to give is that Apple hardware lasts longer than PC hardware :P

Not saying that Apple is always right, or is not hypocrite, but comes a time when people need to move on and upgrade. And I think Apple did a great job at transitioning ever since they introduced the Intel processors, and universal binaries (PPC/Intel). And now they are dropping the PPC. And what's so bad about that? People need to upgrade one day or another. It's not when you make the cut, but how to manage the cut. And Microsoft could just do the exact same thing, if it plans the transition correctly.

Yes Microsoft has a very big market share, and transition may not be easy. No one said it would be, and it would probably take longer. But it is not something that Microsoft cannot do. Apple definitely struggled from OS 9 to OS X, but look at what they have done. Not easy, but they did it. And then cam Intel, and the transition went rather smoothly.

Before you guys say anything, I AM WRITING THIS ON A 8 YEAR OLD 1.5 GHz POWERBOOK G4 with 2GB of RAM. It's running Leopard just fine, and barely have any problem. So will I be upgrading? Yes. Do I have to? No. Do I feel left out? No. Intel is around since 2006. It was a matter of time before Apple cut the cord. Who in his/her right mind would think that Apple would keep the PPC architecture after introducing the x86 one? I surely did not.

PPC users had 3 years. Time to move on.

As to Apple bashing Microsoft, well it's business. Not always rightfully and/or properly done, but it's business. If Microsoft want to impress, then they should build a new version of Windows from scratch. Start transitioning now. Push the developers to transition their coding, etc. People will whine. People will always whine. But people will adapt, and people will adopt. And that is something that Microsoft needs to understand. They need to make a bold move, and people will follow. But they need to plan it right. Do I think can they can do it? Yes. Do I think they will do it? I don't think so. But it would be for the better if they did.

Perhaps this Microsoft bashing is getting old and boring, but perhaps it'll push Microsoft in doing something it should have done long ago, and really go head to head with Apple, and really prove it can do things right, and it can lead.

einsteinbqat said,
Before you guys say anything, I AM WRITING THIS ON A 8 YEAR OLD 1.5 GHz POWERBOOK G4 with 2GB of RAM. It's running Leopard just fine, and barely have any problem.


your point !, you can install and run 7 on Pentium 3 with only 512 mb of ram and even dont get those barely problems ur having....


einsteinbqat said,
but perhaps it'll push Microsoft in doing something it should have done long ago, and really go head to head with Apple, and really prove it can do things right, and it can lead.


apple dont have to push microsoft, thats what we are for... and we does get windows 7 which is a better OS and it actually makes apple to do stuff now to get head to head...

einsteinbqat:
"If Microsoft want to impress, then they should build a new version of Windows from scratch. Start transitioning now."

Of all the posts thus far, this statement is the worst. Congrats.

einsteinbqat said,
...Before you guys say anything, I AM WRITING THIS ON A 8 YEAR OLD 1.5 GHz POWERBOOK G4 with 2GB of RAM...

Except for that broken caps lock key obviously!

Their point was valid, because Snow Leopard won't run on a PPC machine. The point is really quiet simple, why is it that when Vista won't run on 9 year old machines Microsoft get slated for it, but when the latest and greatest version of OSX won't run on 3-4 year old machines apple are somehow doing their users a favour?

Apple has a product that in some ways is superior to Windows, that does not have many of the problems that plague the Windows ecosystem.

wow

it's true in a sense. he spoke about it in the article. the ability for them to make a radical change and only have a relatively small number of people be effected by that change could be considered a positive.

I was JUST raging about this same subject with my friends on ventrilo not 2 hours ago. Apple is such a hypocrite.

Too bad they conveniently forgot to mention that Snow Leopard will cost WAY under $100, while we still don't know how much 7 will cost other than some reference from a deal BestBuy will be having. Since 7 is essentially Vista the way it should have been, we should be getting it for cheap if you have Vista, kinda like how Apple is doing with SL since it's "just" an incremental upgrade and 7 is a rebooting and fixing of Vista

I also applaud Apple for offering Snow Leopard as an upgrade for only $29 to Leopard users. They must have seen the news that Microsoft would be offering Windows 7 upgrades for far less than "normal" ($49) and decided they should do the same. In such a tough economic time it's good to see the price reflect the market a bit.

If you are not going to read the article, then please do not post.

And dont get on the subject of cost differences...I believe thats been ragged on enough on Neowin.

This has to be one of THE BEST articles that has been written here and a long time. This is a great comparison and it was described in a way that even fanboys can't bitch about. Very good read!

Sean2989 said,
This has to be one of THE BEST articles that has been written here and a long time. This is a great comparison and it was described in a way that even fanboys can't bitch about. Very good read!

I agree. This article is great. Bravo.

Wow. Nicely Written. Was expecting a rant but you came of level headed in your criticism.

Correct me if wrong but a Macboi colleague of mine told me the audience didn't eat it up as usual and there were actual groans from the crowd when he took that dig at Windows 7. Just wondering because I can't imagine all those iBoi's in the front row not jizzing themselves silly when "Bash Windows" part of the keynote started.

Btw Apple, over 90% of all your iPod and iPhone customers are Windows users....you can't design an OS that appeals to the majority of your OWN customers. How about dem apples?

Also Google Chrome is the fastest browser in any relevant benchmarks I've seen, so enough with making us laugh with your Safari claims. I know Google put their B-Team developers on the OSX version but there's always BootCamp so you can boot outta that Novelty OS and try out a webkit browser that's actually usable. Gotta love the irony.

Correction to the article. Vista is built on server 2003. Not XP. When they started they did base it on XP. It wasn't working out as planned and they scrapped that and based it off of server 2003.

The point? Buy new Apple hardware. Luckily, Laptop hunters ads provoked a price-drop, not nearly to PC prices, but a drop nonetheless. Competition will drive Apple, not the iPhone anymore. AT&T isn't on Apple's side anymore, and the company has invested too much into iPhone.

I have to admit this article kind of woke me up; it's a fresh new take that's not exactly deriding but more or less insightful. I'm quite the Apple fanboy myself, but will listen and agree with points which are WELL-EDUCATED (like those of Paul Thurott...John C. Dvorak on the other hand ticks me off).

10.5, IMO, can stand on it's own now. It's an OS that will last at least 3-4 more years for those PowerPCs and keep them running for a while. Not to mention there's still a good app base for PowerPCs that won't go away for now but at one point in time you gotta get rid of the dead weight, and that was what PowerPC had become. Windows 7 is not necessarily giving new life to lower-end hardware, it's just giving life to XP computers that couldn't even touch Vista before, and it's not like 7's boundless in features.

We all also have to admit that the diffraction of versions for Seven (and Vista) is RIDICULOUS. You should be able to have one OS that does everything you want it to, even if you don't need it at first.

It's not to say that Apple isn't hypocritical. A lot of Apple fanboys are horribly puzzled by this Leopard --> Snow Leopard transition. How will the DVD know if we have Leopard? That's an easy question to answer. But what about if we have a hard drive wipe? Is this the first time ever that we might have to keep old DVDs lying around as proof-of-purchase? Apple bashed Microsoft for this and now we're seeing it first hand.

I am also, admittedly, a BIG 7 fan. I tried out the RC on my macbook and loved it and can't wait for it to come out on current laptops.

My main point though? Liked the article, love Neowin no matter what

until a critical flaw is found in some old iLife or safaria and to get the latest patched version? you need 10.6... it has happened before... and apple will do it again

The 'diffraction of features' is to spread Windows across all segments of the market, from the really affordable to the high end. Microsoft only make Software, so they have to make their money back. Apple can afford to make OSX cheaper, because they will already have you sucked into using their hardware.

The last PowerPCs were sold in August 2006 only if you bought a PowerMac. Everything else was phased out by May. And I think that after 3 years with extreme advances in technology, it really is time to get new hardware.

dagamer34 said,
The last PowerPCs were sold in August 2006 only if you bought a PowerMac. Everything else was phased out by May. And I think that after 3 years with extreme advances in technology, it really is time to get new hardware.


Typical apple user mentality. Which is why apple can say the things it does. 3 year old hardware is still perfectly usable... unless of course its a Mac.

dagamer34 said,
The last PowerPCs were sold in August 2006 only if you bought a PowerMac. Everything else was phased out by May. And I think that after 3 years with extreme advances in technology, it really is time to get new hardware.

Wait, what...huh? *scratches head* Maybe I shouldnt of had that last beer....

So Microsoft is bashed when the new Windows OS won't run on 3+ year old hardware yet Apple is praised for the exact same thing?

mrp04 said,
So Microsoft is bashed when the new Windows OS won't run on 3+ year old hardware yet Apple is praised for the exact same thing?

windows 7 can run on an pc longer than 3 years, fyi my laptop is 4 years old and it cost 500 back then it was a ****ty computer no less now. what they were talking about is xp and previous OS's i believe

dagamer34 said,
The last PowerPCs were sold in August 2006 only if you bought a PowerMac. Everything else was phased out by May. And I think that after 3 years with extreme advances in technology, it really is time to get new hardware.

But three years ago, a selling point was that Apple hardware lasted longer than PC hardware...

Opposite is true now?

mrp04 said,
So Microsoft is bashed when the new Windows OS won't run on 3+ year old hardware designed, built & sold by other companies, yet Apple is praised for the exact same thing on hardware they designed, built and sold?

Expanded on that a bit -

I tweeted almost this exact issue when I was reading the keynote earlier.

Apple bashes Microsoft for Windows 7 being essentially the same OS under the hood as Vista. And this is primarily true. The core OS didn't change that much, partially because Vista's core was so strong it didn't need to be, and partially to prevent more app and driver-compatibility issues like they had when Vista launched. But they changed the interface almost drastically, and brought on major UX changes that the users will notice and will impact their use of the OS. Meanwhile Snow Leopard makes apparently major under-the-hood changes that affect its speed, stability, and set themselves up for future possibilities, but on the surface the changes are minor. What the user will see is an OS that seems virtually identical to 10.5 with a few updates that feel like they could have been free.

So to recap, MS makes a new OS that looks, feels, and acts different, but maintains the same strong core as its predecessor, and they're a joke. Apple feels their preceding OS's core needed major refinement, but the user experience should stay mostly untouched (other than a few functions that seem strikingly familiar to us Windows 7 users), and they're the heroes?

So what Apple's saying is that Microsoft should have kept their UX mostly the same and rewritten their core completely like they did with Snow Leopard. Wait, didn't Microsoft do that recently with Vista? And what happened? Oh, yes, Apple ridiculed them for it non-stop for over two years, then compared their new OS to it.

The reality is Apple's going to trash Microsoft no matter what. It's no-win between the two of them. Just like when Lindsey Lohan offered to perform for Obama and when his campaign turned her down, McCain's team trashed him for being too good for her when we know he would have been trashed for associating with her if he had accepted. Apple's primary marketing technique is NOT to talk about how good their product is, or even how much better their product is than the competition. Their technique is to point out and stretch every flaw in their competition's product that their customers will resonate with (or manufacture them if they're not there), and infer that their own product doesn't suffer from the same, or equal problems.

I don't know about you, but I don't buy from companies whose entire marketing strategy is to bash the competition. Microsoft's managed to stay positive so far (although the Zune ad pushed the line a little bit and failed to hit the mark), which speaks well for them. It speaks poorly for their products that that's all they have to say for it, and it makes them look bad as people. Not cool.

Tweet? Good thing you posted on Neowin too so people would see it ;)

But I disagree. As I have stated earlier, Microsoft doesn't care if you buy Windows 7 and put it on a PC or a Mac as long as you buy Windows. They don't care if you buy Office or Office:mac as long as you buy Office.

For Microsoft it can actually be win-win. Don't forget: One of Apple's main reasons to "switch" to Mac is because you can run Winodws on it.

With 10.6, it's just "Snow Leopard." 10.5 was "Leopard," 10.6 is "Snow Leopard." It's the same animal, only one hangs out in the snow.

What. The. Hell.

Stopped reading right there because I started laughing.

MGS3_GrayFox said,
What. The. Hell.

Stopped reading right there because I started laughing.

Well then you missed out on a really great article... It describes apple perfectly.

shockz said,
Well then you missed out on a really great article... It describes apple perfectly.

Not perfectly. The words arrogant and self centered were never mentioned.

Great article! As soon as I heard Apple's swipe at Windows 7, I was thinking "Yeah, and Snow Leopard is Leopard 2.0 because it's a refinement of Leopard just like how you described Windows 7".

It's no surprise that Apple took a swipe at Windows, because it's business after all, but come on, Apple, get your facts straight next time not be so hypocritical.

Most people buy Apple computers because they are shiny and cool...not because they prefer the "superior" software. So, why does Apple even bother with marketing their software... People will buy Apple regardless of what's inside the machines.

Agreed! We have an entire department of Mac people at my job and not a single one of them have come up with one legitimate reason as to why Mac OS is better than Windows. They just keep saying "Macs are better. Just buy a Mac." You know what makes me cringe though? When someone tells me "I bought a Mac because I wanted to do graphics/video stuff."

Now THAT'S ignorance at its worst. Poor people....

Apple is scared, they are small (in the OS world) they have to make noise. People should stop blogging and talking about it. Just ignore it. I have the feeling apple does it on purpose, to be heard. Its the only way this makes sense, this nonsense and lies they spread so people talk about it.

On a side note, apple should be scared. Win 7 is so good that, me i had a macbook pro, an imac, and switched from vista to leopard almost every 2 weeks (reformat, clean install- no dual boot, as i like to use only one OS at a time, and have my work there at one place).... i have some sort of addiction problem or whatever, every time something new comes out i have to have it, or at other times i get bored quick and need something new... So win 7 is that good, that i didnt even take a look at snow leopard, and not own any mac anymore. Win 7 is the ****.

Really though, WWC keynote happened, apple showed off snow leopard took a swipe at win 7... and people blog about it. Good marketing apple lol, so people will take a look at what apples mac OS has to offer than


Steve Job for damn sure aint angry at articles like this, it probably makes him smile

Yup, and most of the blog writing is about Apple's continued arrogance and immaturity. WWDC has been positive press for Microsoft that's for sure.

birdie-87 said,
People should stop blogging and talking about it. Just ignore it. I have the feeling apple does it on purpose, to be heard. Its the only way this makes sense, this nonsense and lies they spread so people talk about it.

Exactly. They are using the age old marketing method of controversy. If people ignored their pc bashing adds they would have stopped a long time ago.


(Interesting fact I learned while researching this article. According to Wikipedia, real snow leopards cannot roar. They lack some features in their larynx that other big cats have. Seems fitting.)

Another interesting fact....from the same Wikipedia page. Snow Leopards are also on the endangered species list.

andrewbares said,
Isn't OS X pretty much endangered anyways?!?

Where do you get that. You have to remember that there the iphone is the #1 smart phone now and every iphone uses OS X, Every ipod used os x and then more then 75 million people use osx.

The thing that amazes me is i have seen the same people smack down Macs but just glow about the iphone yet its running the same OS. There is room for more then 1 OS in this world. Id say windows mobile is in danger of being extinct.

SlackerRadio said,
Where do you get that. You have to remember that there the iphone is the #1 smart phone now and every iphone uses OS X,

It was the number one smartphone for 25-30 years old's who paid cash in a retail store, and they even lost that sliced up look at the market a month later. The report clearly acknowledged that it did not include corporate sales. Convenient for a press report, but as usual with Apple, not at all accurate.

And OS X does not run on the iPhone, a version of OS X does. Is MS allowed to count it's WM licenses as well, or just Apple?

If the iPhone ran OS X as you say, you'll be able to load up the developer builds of Slow Leopard on your iPhone off DVD. Let someone know when you've accomplished this.

The thing that amazes me is i have seen the same people smack down Macs but just glow about the iphone yet its running the same OS.

No, it is not, once you look beyond Apple's sales pitch. It's using a version of OS X, not OS X proper.

andrewbares said,
I agree. This is going to be bookmarked for a while. Gonna shove it in anyone's face when they say Apple's a better business.

+1
Please allow me to do the same thing.

Finally; someone gets it!

While I run Windows 7 RC as my day-to-day operating system (and the 64-bit flavor at that, despite having a mere gigabyte of system RAM), the fact that I can do exactly that and get better performance than Vista 32-bit in the same footprint RAM-wise should speak volumes as to how improved Windows 7 is over Vista. (In case you've been hiding under a rock, "Snow Leopard" (as the refined Leopard has been called within Apple) is 64-bit only/x86-only; both PowerPC processors and 32-bit-only CoreDuo-based Mac minis are deliberately left in the lurch. That means that the only upgrade path those same Mac minis have is to....Windows 7.)

Way to take care of your users, Apple.

(On the other hand, any PC that can run Windows Vista today, and quite a few that had to stop with Windows XP, can upgrade to Windows 7, and lose nothing or very little in the way of performance, application support, or stability. In fact, the vast majority will see gains instead of losses in terms of performance, stability, or both. And that's not *just* over Vista, but even over XP.)

The only quibble? Microsoft isn't encouraged, or allowed, to ship Windows 7 on USB thumb-drives.

It's called buisnes. Microsoft users didn't have have any issues with the Laptop hunter vids that took potshots at Apples pricing in every ad so what is wrong with Apple showing Windows 7 flaws. And yes DLL's - The Registry and De-fragmenting are flaws which have been in Windows for years and as yet have not been fixed.

Vice said,
It's called buisnes. Microsoft users didn't have have any issues with the Laptop hunter vids that took potshots at Apples pricing in every ad so what is wrong with Apple showing Windows 7 flaws. And yes DLL's - The Registry and De-fragmenting are flaws which have been in Windows for years and as yet have not been fixed.

The difference: Apple's pricing barely had a mention in each of the ads, and it talked about the benefits of a Windows PC: it's cheaper. That Apple PCs are more expensive is a fact, and quite an easy one to work off. It insults no-one, it does not denigrate the abilities of the OS or of the PCs. It didn't concoct absurd realities where up is down.

Now, please tell us exactly what is wrong with DLLs, the registry, and defragmentation in Windows, rather than regurgitating the names.

The registry isn't a flaw, it is a design feature. The problem is not with Windows, it is with the way third party applications screw it up. Yes, it does have problems attached but there is no way to remove the registry without breaking pretty much every piece of hardware and software in existance, and in this case I would imagine Microsoft decided that discretion was the better part of valour.

Also, the Laptop Hunter videos are actually a genuine attempt to display an actual advantage of buying a Windows laptop, namely the budget orientated consumer. Apple's ads are just cheap crap full of smug arrogance that hinge on half truths and shoddy advertising. There is a whole world of difference between the 2.

Oh and fyi ALL filesystems fragment

FidgetyMo said,
what a random "flaw list" lol

It's a list from elsewhere that came up very recently, not sure who it came from. It was random then, too, but now it's being repeated as gospel. Doesn't take long...

i guess i could see an argument for improving software components like dll's and the registry.. theres always better and more efficient ways to do things.. but fragmentation is more of a fundamental hardware problem, solved by software, that affects all modern.. like frank said.. filesystems. we're not comparing apples to apples anymore.. oooh zing

Frank Fontaine said,
The registry isn't a flaw, it is a design feature. The problem is not with Windows, it is with the way third party applications screw it up. Yes, it does have problems attached but there is no way to remove the registry without breaking pretty much every piece of hardware and software in existance, and in this case I would imagine Microsoft decided that discretion was the better part of valour.

Also, the Laptop Hunter videos are actually a genuine attempt to display an actual advantage of buying a Windows laptop, namely the budget orientated consumer. Apple's ads are just cheap crap full of smug arrogance that hinge on half truths and shoddy advertising. There is a whole world of difference between the 2.

Oh and fyi ALL filesystems fragment

Look Shane, all file systems may fragment but Windows is the one that gives the user a donkey UI in which to clean it up. And you know that. And Microsofts advertising was shoddy at best. It reeked of desperation and made Windows users (Like myself) look like cheap bargain bin hunters who are willing to settle for second rate just to save some pennies at the bank.

Vice said,

Look Shane, all file systems may fragment but Windows is the one that gives the user a donkey UI in which to clean it up. And you know that. And Microsofts advertising was shoddy at best. It reeked of desperation and made Windows users (Like myself) look like cheap bargain bin hunters who are willing to settle for second rate just to save some pennies at the bank.


Geez, people like ragging on me so much that they've resorted to sticking my name on other peoples posts when they decide to argue with them.

Vice said,
Look Shane, all file systems may fragment but Windows is the one that gives the user a donkey UI in which to clean it up. And you know that. And Microsofts advertising was shoddy at best. It reeked of desperation and made Windows users (Like myself) look like cheap bargain bin hunters who are willing to settle for second rate just to save some pennies at the bank.

I disagree with this statement. Yes, MS used cost as a point in their advertisements but it didn't make me feel cheap and I'm "Mr. Microsoft" at work. They are simply doing business and the best way to get it done is to present facts that are attractive to consumers. In this case, it was cost.

Vice said,
Look Shane, all file systems may fragment but Windows is the one that gives the user a donkey UI in which to clean it up. And you know that. And Microsofts advertising was shoddy at best. It reeked of desperation and made Windows users (Like myself) look like cheap bargain bin hunters who are willing to settle for second rate just to save some pennies at the bank.


both osx and windows vista+ auto-defrag to similar levels as far as i know. they both rearrange the smaller and commonly accessed files to speed up the system. however, defragging for larger files as well as unused space is still up to the user manually, or as windows vista+ does it, scheduled in the middle of the night.

Shane Pitman said,


Geez, people like ragging on me so much that they've resorted to sticking my name on other peoples posts when they decide to argue with them.

lol

Frank Fontaine said,
The registry isn't a flaw, it is a design feature. The problem is not with Windows, it is with the way third party applications screw it up. Yes, it does have problems attached but there is no way to remove the registry without breaking pretty much every piece of hardware and software in existance Oh and fyi ALL filesystems fragment

This imho is a major flaw.

Shane Pitman said,
Geez, people like ragging on me so much that they've resorted to sticking my name on other peoples posts when they decide to argue with them.

LOL!

Shane Pitman said,
Geez, people like ragging on me so much that they've resorted to sticking my name on other peoples posts when they decide to argue with them.

Haha, no, Frank Fontaine's real name is Shane, from what I've seen around the forums

Mrs_Angel_D said,
This imho is a major flaw.

You can't remove .conf files from Linux without breaking pretty much every piece of hardware and software in existance.

You can't remove kext's from OS X without breaking many, many things.

Are these major flaws? No. They aren't. Methods of holding configuration data don't need to be replaced on the fly. It's a trivial non-issue.

Vice said,


Look Shane, all file systems may fragment but Windows is the one that gives the user a donkey UI in which to clean it up. And you know that. And Microsofts advertising was shoddy at best. It reeked of desperation and made Windows users (Like myself) look like cheap bargain bin hunters who are willing to settle for second rate just to save some pennies at the bank.


What!? We are "cheap bargain bin hunters" because we would rather spend $700 on a machine that has better specs than its $1200 Apple counterpart.

+1 in case you haven't noticed they're are high end windows laptops from core i7 laptops to massive 20 and 18.4 inchers.

Vice said,
Look Shane, all file systems may fragment but Windows is the one that gives the user a donkey UI in which to clean it up.


The normal user will never come in contact with defrag, it runs automatically in the background once a week iirc (with very low priority). The same goes for dlls and the registry. Haven't had a problem with all three since the 90s.

Vice said,
Look Shane, all file systems may fragment but Windows is the one that gives the user a donkey UI in which to clean it up

Except that users never, ever, ever need to even look at that UI.

Defragmentation has been automatic since Vista.


And seriously, I can't believe they're ragging on NTFS. They're using HFS+, which is tied with ext3 for 'worst of major OS filesystems' out there.

I never tried to make the claim that the Windows defragmenter was perfect, merely that all Filesystems fragment. Seeing as Diskeeper design the defragging engine built into Windows I would imagine there is some commercial reason behind the fact that what gets into Windows is basic and crappy.

And I don't agree that the adverts make all Windows users look cheap, like all adverts they are merely targeted at a sector of the market, in this case the budget sector. There is nothing second rate about those laptops, they may not have everything you get in a macbook, but they would still suit a large percentage of the people who actually buy laptops

I would disagree on the registry comment. while it does centralize the configuration of programs on windows it also intrinsically ties the install base to the OS install.

It is not an easy proposition to simply move a program between directories for example. Or more importantly change the underlying OS without affecting the system in general.

not to mention it is a single point of failure which can prevent the OS from loading at all. Generally I wish that when the registry was implemented that there were 2 stores. one for the Configuration for the OS and hardware and one for User and software stores.

That said it significantly better than the INI days of windows 3.1.

Frank Fontaine said,
The registry isn't a flaw, it is a design feature. The problem is not with Windows, it is with the way third party applications screw it up. Yes, it does have problems attached but there is no way to remove the registry without breaking pretty much every piece of hardware and software in existance, and in this case I would imagine Microsoft decided that discretion was the better part of valour.

Also, the Laptop Hunter videos are actually a genuine attempt to display an actual advantage of buying a Windows laptop, namely the budget orientated consumer. Apple's ads are just cheap crap full of smug arrogance that hinge on half truths and shoddy advertising. There is a whole world of difference between the 2.

Oh and fyi ALL filesystems fragment

Eldoen said,
Generally I wish that when the registry was implemented that there were 2 stores. one for the Configuration for the OS and hardware and one for User and software stores.

Ah, uhm...

You just described the registry...

waruikoohii said,
You can't remove .conf files from Linux without breaking pretty much every piece of hardware and software in existance.

You can't remove kext's from OS X without breaking many, many things.

Are these major flaws? No. They aren't. Methods of holding configuration data don't need to be replaced on the fly. It's a trivial non-issue.


I will point out a difference here. .conf and kext are not stored in a single database. Which can be corrupted and prevent the entire os from loading.
and generally it is significantly easier to move programs between directories within the system on the .conf setup.

but point taken. .conf is similar to the days of .ini in windows way back when. the later being inconsistant storage location and a improper cascade of control.

el

Eldoen said,
I will point out a difference here. .conf and kext are not stored in a single database. Which can be corrupted and prevent the entire os from loading.
and generally it is significantly easier to move programs between directories within the system on the .conf setup.

How often do you hear of the registry being corrupted?

Calum said,
Haha, no, Frank Fontaine's real name is Shane, from what I've seen around the forums :)

Ah ok . After the beatings I've taken in the comments lately I just figured people were just going to start randomly blaming me for others statements, lol.

Kirkburn said,
How often do you hear of the registry being corrupted?

I believe the last time I saw that was Windows 2000, after lightning struck our well and took out half the electronics in the house. The computer was fine, but the hard drive had corruption everywhere, most notably: registry errors upon boot.

Kirkburn said,

How often do you hear of the registry being corrupted?


bad enough that it forces a reinstall of the OS. In XP before sp2 about 3 times a year. In Vista it was 4 times. But I will admit that I am not an average user and am playing with Beta software quite abit. Thank god for vm's

in an average user with Teenagers in the family I have had to repave my fathers computer 3 times in the past 3 years. 1 was related to a corrupted registry the others were viruses.

But I have seen the weekness of a single store where 3rd parties can access areas of the registry that they shouldn't have access to and the results. as was commented earlier it is 3rd party software that generally is the culprit.

el

MioTheGreat said,
Ah, uhm...

You just described the registry...

no I described a split registry.
Think any thing related to program files, users, documents and settings split out from the registry today and put in its own database and you will have a start. I would go further, split out fonts etc. but that is just me.

Eldoen said,
I would disagree on the registry comment. while it does centralize the configuration of programs on windows it also intrinsically ties the install base to the OS install.

It is not an easy proposition to simply move a program between directories for example. Or more importantly change the underlying OS without affecting the system in general.

not to mention it is a single point of failure which can prevent the OS from loading at all. Generally I wish that when the registry was implemented that there were 2 stores. one for the Configuration for the OS and hardware and one for User and software stores.

It is split into two peaces. Out of the 3 main registry hives ( one hive has the other two hives to make up the 5) one main hive is locaed in the documents and settings of the user. If this Hive is damaged it does not stop the machine booting but the user will proberbly be unable to log into their account. The "other" 2 hives are located in a single file _somewhere_ and that holds the driver info in it that can stop a machine from booting.

By the by DLL's were a good idea in the day of machines with small ammounts of ram. The ability for multiple programs to use the _same_ dll saved memory!

My file system doesnt fragment! I got a zero point hard drive. When it needs space it folds it and opens a worm hole to the next open area. Mohahahahaha. Also my cpu is faster than light or light thought. Heheheh.

Just a little star track joke mixed with computer tech.

My 10 pound hammer and my pc awaits to show some love for each other pounding away.
I will post that video on u tube for your viewing enjoyment.

Peace.

Eldoen said,

no I described a split registry.
Think any thing related to program files, users, documents and settings split out from the registry today and put in its own database and you will have a start. I would go further, split out fonts etc. but that is just me.


You aren't getting this buddy... The registry already is 'split' into exactly what you described.

Additionally, the Registry virtualization technology in Vista and Win7 go beyond even what you are asking for, as the OS can further 'split' the registry by application and user if needed for things from security (IE protected mode i.e.) or for legacy compatibility where applications from the 90s try to do crap they shouldn't or don't have the security to do so.

As for people talking about registry corruption... The registry is just a database maintained on the computer, much like the MFT or File Tables of the Hard Drive itself. You have just as much chance your hard drive losing your File Table as you do the Registry being lost or corrupted. (And this is not even accounting for protections in place for the registry that archive it, and use NTFS journaling to make sure all writes to it are solid.)


As for the argument about fragmentation, the UI is what someone wants so bitch about? Really? Why in the hell are you even in the defrag UI, it is automatic, leave it alone...


The real fragmentation debate would be on how the FS handles fragments, and between NTFS and HPS+, NTFS wins this arguments in terms of accessing even heavily fragmented files.

If you want to argue what FS fragments more, NTFS will 'lose', but this is the nature of an advanced FS that has inherit 'copy on write' features, and when all the *nix and OS X geeks FINALLY get moved to a FS at this level like ZFS, it they will also have the same level of fragmentation NTFS has. Some advanced features come with a trade off, and this is one of them, and it is something OS X can't even do, so it doesn't have to deal with this.

Eldoen said,


bad enough that it forces a reinstall of the OS. In XP before sp2 about 3 times a year. In Vista it was 4 times. But I will admit that I am not an average user and am playing with Beta software quite abit. Thank god for vm's

in an average user with Teenagers in the family I have had to repave my fathers computer 3 times in the past 3 years. 1 was related to a corrupted registry the others were viruses.

But I have seen the weekness of a single store where 3rd parties can access areas of the registry that they shouldn't have access to and the results. as was commented earlier it is 3rd party software that generally is the culprit.

el

Four times with Vista?

Sweet jesus, you're doing something wrong.

I'm not an average user, and I play around with Beta software constantly, but I haven't had a corrupt registry since, well, maybe Windows 98.

Maybe the windows defragmenter is "crappy and basic" so that morons don't think they need to defrag every 3 minutes or else their computer turns into a pooppile.
Seriously, watching magic colored squares move around on a screen is overrated.

Try this next time someone asks you to "fix their computer" when nothings wrong (like an icon is missing): send them away, do nothing, then have them come back and tell them you "defraged" and their system is running much faster now. They will agree with you.

Oh! I get it. He thinks that because you can view the registry with one program, it's contained in one file. Newbie mistake, don't hold it against him.

have fun with vs 2010 beta 1 doing an uninstall, have already heard from at least 3 people that it may cause a OS reinstall event.

BTW the 2 of the ones in vista related to vs 2008 alpha and beta, uninstalls. 1 related to an electrical storm, and 1 a shorted power line(well that one was pretty much a complete computer build.

waruikoohii said,

Four times with Vista?

Sweet jesus, you're doing something wrong.

I'm not an average user, and I play around with Beta software constantly, but I haven't had a corrupt registry since, well, maybe Windows 98.

Then I guess there are to many 3rd parties that access that os only hive.
also it isn't discoverable, the point should be. the underlying OS should be able to be wiped. and reloaded and programs installed should just show up. That is what I mean by seperate.

El

thenetavenger said,


You aren't getting this buddy... The registry already is 'split' into exactly what you described.

Additionally, the Registry virtualization technology in Vista and Win7 go beyond even what you are asking for, as the OS can further 'split' the registry by application and user if needed for things from security (IE protected mode i.e.) or for legacy compatibility where applications from the 90s try to do crap they shouldn't or don't have the security to do so.

As for people talking about registry corruption... The registry is just a database maintained on the computer, much like the MFT or File Tables of the Hard Drive itself. You have just as much chance your hard drive losing your File Table as you do the Registry being lost or corrupted. (And this is not even accounting for protections in place for the registry that archive it, and use NTFS journaling to make sure all writes to it are solid.)


As for the argument about fragmentation, the UI is what someone wants so bitch about? Really? Why in the hell are you even in the defrag UI, it is automatic, leave it alone...


The real fragmentation debate would be on how the FS handles fragments, and between NTFS and HPS+, NTFS wins this arguments in terms of accessing even heavily fragmented files.

If you want to argue what FS fragments more, NTFS will 'lose', but this is the nature of an advanced FS that has inherit 'copy on write' features, and when all the *nix and OS X geeks FINALLY get moved to a FS at this level like ZFS, it they will also have the same level of fragmentation NTFS has. Some advanced features come with a trade off, and this is one of them, and it is something OS X can't even do, so it doesn't have to deal with this.

Interesting article, thanks!

I try my best to tune out the obvious "fanboy" rants and stick to news for both Apple and Microsoft. As MS customer, I am interested in what Apple is up to since the two of them push one another constantly.

I agree though, the "I'm a Mac" commercials are pretty lame and appear to be misrepresent some aspects of the Apple and their security.

Not to mention they call NT technology "old", it's newer then the Unix technology that OS X is built on, by around 20yrs.

excalpius said,
A bit of a mess writing-structure-wise, but I gives a +1 to the editorial anyway. 8)

Your sentence is a mess.

Great Article Marshy!

agreed. one of the better articles ive read on neowin. cut through all the marketed corporate bs that the lowest common denominator frequently falls victim to.

There is a lot of things that are in a default Windows install (any version) that could probably use some cleaning.

You mean there are a lot of things?

Definitely well-written. And hit all the important points too... finally, someone else shares in my dislike for Apple's hypocrisy. /understatement?

carmatic said,
You mean there are a lot of things?

Nope. "Of things" is a prepositional phrase that describes "a lot". A "lot" is a singular object. Most people seem to get it backwards, and assume that "a lot of" modifies whatever is the noun in the prepositional phrase, and therefore insist (as you did) that the verb should be in the plural form. I'm pretty sure his grammar is technically correct, though popular usage supports your "correction" ;-)

/not a grammar nazi... usually

enjoyed that read. I like Mac because it's my choice of OS. I also use 7RC as my MAIN choice because my mac is a PowerPC. Apple, we know you make good stuff. Enough with the arrogance already, and listen to your loyal fans who want a better Finder experience, bluray, etc. At least Microsoft listens to the feedback from the public for Windows 7.

Itchy92 said,
Nope. "Of things" is a prepositional phrase that describes "a lot". A "lot" is a singular object. Most people seem to get it backwards, and assume that "a lot of" modifies whatever is the noun in the prepositional phrase, and therefore insist (as you did) that the verb should be in the plural form. I'm pretty sure his grammar is technically correct, though popular usage supports your "correction" ;-)

/not a grammar nazi... usually

but does popular usage not define how the language is used?
besides, i thought that 'a lot of' was the prepositional phrase, and that 'things' describes the objects in the sentence?

Itchy92 said,
Nope. "Of things" is a prepositional phrase that describes "a lot". A "lot" is a singular object. Most people seem to get it backwards, and assume that "a lot of" modifies whatever is the noun in the prepositional phrase, and therefore insist (as you did) that the verb should be in the plural form. I'm pretty sure his grammar is technically correct, though popular usage supports your "correction" ;-)

/not a grammar nazi... usually


In fact, "there are a lot of things", and "there is a lot of water"... the difference between countable and uncountable. You can see it here:

http://esl.about.com/od/teachingbeginners/a/ab_18beg.htm

I.e., "a lot of" has a different meaning depending on the nature of what follows, and the verb is adjusted accordingly.

carmatic said,


but does popular usage not define how the language is used?
besides, i thought that 'a lot of' was the prepositional phrase, and that 'things' describes the objects in the sentence?


I admit that I use 'are' in cases where a plural follows 'lot', but make no mistake: 'lot' in "a lot of" is a noun, and in singular form. What causes the confusion is the way we've become accustomed to using it as just another way of saying 'many':

1. There are [many] things.
2. There are [a lot of] things.

A better example would be the following:

"That is a deck of cards."

I'm sure that at no time do you feel the need to use 'are' instead of 'is' in that example. Even though it is essentially the exact same sentence structure, and you know that there "are" cards in a deck of cards, the singularity of 'deck' is clear. And yet, deck is a noun used identically to the way the noun 'lot' would be used in "That is a lot of cards."

This is a matter of where spoken english differs from proper form. There are far more examples of this phenomenon, and we're all familiar with it. While there's no reason to feel bad about using 'are' in conversation, you will never win an argument against your english professor if he/she takes points off for allowing it into your work.

It's always best to know the rules before you break them. It's what makes lolcats cute, after all.