My 'Microsoft Never Invents' rant

[tapo]

For context, this was supposed to be part of the IE 7 public preview released thread. It seems this is too big for that section, so I'll post it here.

And for the record, Xbox Live was a good idea. I'm not a blind troll or anything.

Apple did not invent Desktop Search. In fact I remember I read about desktop search first time in Longhorn features back in 2003.

Yeah, Microsoft intended to make search faster by overhauling the filesystem by adding another layer. "WinFS", which ran on top of NTFS (Which is an actual filesystem) was intended to make searches easier.

Of course, it was never implemented, so it doesn't really count. If you think unimplemented things count, it used used Apple's concept of 'stacks', saved searches that behave as folders. They patented it in the mid 90's. WinFS was designed to use stacks all around the filesystem, not just for quick search.

When it comes to desktop search, I honestly don't know (probably a Windows shareware vendor), but Google's attempt at Google Desktop Search, was to create an index beforehand, so searches didn't take so long. It also searched inside files so you didn't need to know the file's name. MSN Desktop Search, aside from copying the name "Desktop Search", was a direct ripoff. Apple's "Spotlight" search, was jumping into the game. Bringing back stacks, and adding the same type of quick searches GDS was well known for.

Windows media works, real media certainly doesn't

Back in its heyday, RealAudio/RealPlayer was actually pretty good. Quicktime had been out for a number of years, for Mac OS as well as Windows. What is now known as Windows Media Player used to be "Video for Windows", and used the avi container. Video for Windows was essentially a copy of Quicktime. When streaming video became more popular than local video, Microsoft rebranded it.

And Windows media only 'works' if you're running a Windows-based PC. Whereas Real has good software for the Mac and Linux, Microsoft did a horrible job on the Mac player, eventually contracting an outside company to turn it into a quicktime plugin. They don't support Linux at all.

Vista's GUI has nothing to do with OSX GUI.

What? Are you kidding me? Microsoft has always copied Apple when it comes to user interfaces, and it became really blatant when they were working on Windows 3.0, when they even hired Susan Kare (designer of the Mac OS icons) to do the Windows 3.0 icons as well. Windows 95 is also a copy (move the start menu to the top of the screen, make the cursor black, and the icons to the right hand side rather then the left).

They also only started codenaming their user interfaces starting with Windows XP, which is the only time they changed it in years (and was right after OS X came out). OS X's UI, codenamed Aqua, was suddenly met by OS XP's UI, codenamed Luna.

And hell, if you still don't believe me, there's even a video showing how much of a ripoff the Vista UI is.

IE works, netscape doesn't

Actually, they were both pretty terrible (Anyone remember Netscape's <blink> tag?) but Microsoft had, and continues to have, a fear that if something is used worldwide and open, then Microsoft's dominance will begin to slip. Remember, they only made a clone of CP/M, and got to where they are today though no-good business tactics (as well as illegal) and being in the right place at the right time.

Netscape, being very popular and available for Mac, Windows, and Unix systems, is seen as a threat. So, after licensing the original Mosaic code from Spyglass, they build IE. Of course, they never paid Spyglass a dime, but that's another story.

So they take IE, mold it into Windows as much as possible, then force it on their users in Windows 98, saying it cannot be removed (though it could, and Microsoft got burned for that).

The hope is, if everyone's running IE and viewing ActiveX websites, instead of Netscape and Java, then nobody could use another OS if they wanted to use the web.

ActiveX didn't catch on as well as they hoped, since Java was popular for the language, as well as applets. So they make their own JVM (Java Virtual Machine) which is shipped with Windows. The Microsoft JVM is incompatible and does not follow the specifications that Sun licensed them the technology under, meaning MSJVM applets wouldn't run on other JVMs for other platforms. When that failed (Sun sued and won), Microsoft makes a clone. C# and .Net CLR to replace Java and the JVM.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I do not like Microsoft.

Edited January 31, 2006 by tapo

[Fonze]

WinFS? :rolleyes: Too bad you wont be seeing it anytime soon. OS X has incredible indexing ability that is FAST and USEFUL. Desktop search is a joke. A lame ripoff.

Use a mac for a month and you will grow to love the logical design (and stability) of the OS.

Albeit Apple is writing for select hardware their OS is still more logical than Windows any day of the week and if you disagree you have never given it a fair chance (or are a dev for .Net)

1. WinFS is implemented in the client form in Vista. The much larger/complex version that spans networks and the internet will not be its full form until Vista server is released or after.

2. Macs are not always more stable than Windows machines. I have seen a powerbook crash more times in the past year than my computer has since I've had it( almost 3 years). OS X didn't just close some apps, it showed a mac BSOD and had to be shut off by holding the power button

3. more logical? do you have any specific examples? sure it seems logical to you, you're a mac user. Stuff on Windows seems logical to me because I use Windows. I have lived with right click for over 10 years. Steve Jobs doesn't think Mac users need a right mouse button. Is option+click really logical?

[ninjagowoowoo]

What a pointless post. As a consumer, Who cares if Microsoft's business tactics suck, or if they copy some things that have been done before. I have never heard of someone not buying something from a company because they were "meanies". And seriously, people who try to compare OSs are just wasting their time. They're all different, and people have their own preferences. I can't wait till OSs all have the same options regarding the GUI and file operations etc. Then you can feel free to compare them.

[briangw]

I think this thread needs to be locked and or deleted before some huge flame war breaks out in here because sir you are doing nothing more than setting yourself up to one.

however before it does get locked I will say this, no company or person ever has an original thought or idea it is always based on something when you get down to it. Apple's GUI idea came from Xerox, Xerox's idea came from paper, paper came from egyptians using papyrus, using papyrus idea came from wall or cave paintings, etc.

OMG we ripped off our GUI's from cave men! But who did they rip off?

Owned! Don't forget that Apple stole the mouse from Xerox too! :whistle:

This thread does need to be locked!

[Leddy]

The inherent problem with Mac users is that they're nearly all fanboys. (The non-fanboy mac users probably aren't on Neowin.)

I have a friend who bought an iBook, and on his flickr there's pictures of him sitting NEXT TO HIS IBOOK BOX giving it a hug, OPENING IT, AND HOLDING HIS IBOOK. Then there's pictures of him starting it up, and so on...

My first impression of that was "wtf? Are you serious?"

[Fighter-X]

Jeez, please get over the MS B****ing. It's all preferences on the OS's, if you like the OSX fine, don't go around b****ing, it's a sad attempt to put down MS. Lets blame apple because they copied Xerox :no:

[MulletRobZ]

Holy dying! This flame war's gotta stop, y'all! But to find proof on why Microsoft and Apple end up copying each other, may I recommend the film "Pirates of Silicon Valley"!

But yes, I do agree that in this capitalistic society, inventors are always at a disadvantage if they lack the marketing power or the willingness to use it. Look at all the major brands you notice with virtually any product. Chances are 90% of those products were not invented by them, but rather by small entrepreneurial groups. It's just that the big guys were able to effectively steal the ideas, rebrand them as their own, and get away with murder! So thus, enough said! :p

[Matt T]

The inherent problem with Mac users is that they're nearly all fanboys. (The non-fanboy mac users probably aren't on Neowin.)

I have a friend who bought an iBook, and on his flickr there's pictures of him sitting NEXT TO HIS IBOOK BOX giving it a hug, OPENING IT, AND HOLDING HIS IBOOK. Then there's pictures of him starting it up, and so on...

My first impression of that was "wtf? Are you serious?"

I'm an Apple fan but I don't consider myself a fanboy. I like Mac's, I like Apple as a company, and on that note, I also like Microsoft. But I agree with what you said - a lot of Apple users definitely seem to take things a bit more personally. Personally I find it embarrassing, because a lot of people (yourself, for example) assume that all Mac users are like that. Let me assure you, we're not all insane.

Returning to the topic, I don't care that Microsoft borrow or "steal" ideas from other companies. It's true that every company does it; Microsoft just seems to get flamed more because it's a much larger company. To be fair, Apple have copied quite a lot of things from other companies - the GUI, for example. And Windows XP had fast user switching before OS X did. The thing that bothers me is the way Microsoft market new features - they call features "revolutionary" and "things you have yet to imagine", but those features have already been around for years. Microsoft act as if they invented certain features, which they didn't. I don't care if how many things Microsoft "steal", but I do wish they would stop taking all the credit for features they didn't invent nor implement first.

[DarkSim905]

Holy dying! This flame war's gotta stop, y'all! But to find proof on why Microsoft and Apple end up copying each other, may I recommend the film "Pirates of Silicon Valley"!

This board isn't ready for such intelligent movie making .

Goes to show (history wise) that Apple really wouldn't be around without Microsoft...

[tapo]

A few things to mention:

I haven't read everyone's replies to what I have said so far, and I'm probably not going to check this thread again. It's late, and I can see the early stages of a flame war brewing. So if you're interested in a lively debate or have any questions, feel free to send me an email.

1. This thread is *NOT* about Windows. This thread is about what I personally think of Microsoft as a company. I don't care if you use Windows. Hell, I use Windows. As such, this is not a stupid operating system bash. Use what you like.

(To go briefly off-topic, I hate those people who block IE for no good reason othen than it being IE. I'd understand if you don't want to test under it or something, but software zealotry has no place in a website. Sorry about randomly mentioning this, but I just came to one of those pages.)

2. Though by reading it again I seem to mention Apple a lot, this is NOT a pro-Apple thread, nor was it intended to be. And if I care about anything, It's what Microsoft did to Java (or Spyglass, or General Magic, or BeOS, or VisiON...I'll put in the whole 'Deception about making MSN Messenger open' too.)

But don't worry, I'll always hate Apple for Sherlock 3 too.

3. I have a secret love for Microsoft Bob. But hey, I was a kid! Windows 3.1 was ugly, and Bob had GeoSafari! What was I to do?

4. Xerox recieved Apple stock in exchange for Apple using the GUI concept. A lot of things were changed from the Alto machine to the Apple Lisa (Overlapping windows, for example.)

My problem with the Windows interface is, that it is almost never inventive, and always copying Apple. You can create an operating system without copying Apple! I mean, look at Nextstep, look at BeOS, SkyOS, the Enlightenment window manager, Project Looking Glass, Croquet.

They don't have to be radical changes. I'd just like someone at Microsoft to sit down one day, and find out what would make life on their computer easier. Something as simple but as brilliant as Expose or Growl.

[Leddy]

My problem with the Windows interface is, that it is almost never inventive, and always copying Apple. You can create an operating system without copying Apple! I mean, look at Nextstep, look at BeOS, SkyOS, the Enlightenment window manager, Project Looking Glass, Croquet.

They don't have to be radical changes. I'd just like someone at Microsoft to sit down one day, and find out what would make life on their computer easier. Something as simple but as brilliant as Expose or Growl.

Windows and Mac OS X are both radically different from each other.

Mac OS X relies on the "dock" (which is nice until you get a lot of programs) and the Program folder (which admittedly is a bit clunky) for starting programs.

Windows relies on the Start Menu for starting programs.

The Finder bar in Mac OS X serves as the menubar for all programs; in Windows, a windowborder is drawn with the menu an option to be displayed by the individual program.

I still don't know where Windows has copied Mac OS X on the user interface. Really. Windows has been copying itself, and the layout of the UI has been like this back before OS X came out.

[Stunna]

I'm an Apple fan but I don't consider myself a fanboy. I like Mac's, I like Apple as a company, and on that note, I also like Microsoft. But I agree with what you said - a lot of Apple users definitely seem to take things a bit more personally. Personally I find it embarrassing, because a lot of people (yourself, for example) assume that all Mac users are like that. Let me assure you, we're not all insane.

Returning to the topic, I don't care that Microsoft borrow or "steal" ideas from other companies. It's true that every company does it; Microsoft just seems to get flamed more because it's a much larger company. To be fair, Apple have copied quite a lot of things from other companies - the GUI, for example. And Windows XP had fast user switching before OS X did. The thing that bothers me is the way Microsoft market new features - they call features "revolutionary" and "things you have yet to imagine", but those features have already been around for years. Microsoft act as if they invented certain features, which they didn't. I don't care if how many things Microsoft "steal", but I do wish they would stop taking all the credit for features they didn't invent nor implement first.

It is revolutionary for most people.

Most people only need one operating system.

[Crayon]

I'm an Apple fan but I don't consider myself a fanboy. I like Mac's, I like Apple as a company, and on that note, I also like Microsoft. But I agree with what you said - a lot of Apple users definitely seem to take things a bit more personally. Personally I find it embarrassing, because a lot of people (yourself, for example) assume that all Mac users are like that. Let me assure you, we're not all insane.

Returning to the topic, I don't care that Microsoft borrow or "steal" ideas from other companies. It's true that every company does it; Microsoft just seems to get flamed more because it's a much larger company. To be fair, Apple have copied quite a lot of things from other companies - the GUI, for example. And Windows XP had fast user switching before OS X did. The thing that bothers me is the way Microsoft market new features - they call features "revolutionary" and "things you have yet to imagine", but those features have already been around for years. Microsoft act as if they invented certain features, which they didn't. I don't care if how many things Microsoft "steal", but I do wish they would stop taking all the credit for features they didn't invent nor implement first.

of course MS would market stuff the add in as revolutionary... you even used the word MARKET yourself, what do you think marketing is... do you expect them to say something like, " well this is a entirely new feature we just added to the OS, but it's actually nothing new at all since everyone else has it." any idea how idiotic that sounds?

and it's not like apple isn't doing the same, how 'bout dashboard, they pretty much say they invented the idea of widgets in one of steve's keynotes. spotlight, which they marketed as another revolutionary product when msn desktop search was out before them.

[JiveMasterT]

please... for every thing you can say MS ripped from Apple, I can some up with a thing Apple stole from MS...

Take for example, memory managed by the operating system... been around since windows 3.1, but apple released osx and suddenly it was a huge feature! how about x86 support... oh well, windows has been doing that forever, and now Apple is doing it and suddely it's awesome. Also, Apple often gets credit for being this revolutionary mp3 player maker. the ipod sucks, it wasn't the first, and I'm quite sure that if it wasnt for that little overhyped trinket that Apple would still be in the financial troubles they were in years ago.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... if you don't like Microsoft to the point where you need to rant about it, then don't use microsoft products, even the ones made for the apple operating system. if all the people who disliked MS for their practices stopped using them and came up with alternatives, then MS would be forced to do things differently. not saying you would like what they would do, but it would be different.

Oh and for the record, I don't dislike Apple... I don't like Steve Jobs, but I don't mind apple as a company... hell, I'm using a Mac to type this. I just don't like people getting all up in arms and getting so mad at one company or another. the fact of the matter is, they are going to do what they are going to do and the only way you can show a company that you don't like their business practices is to not buy the products. this is why i don't have an ipod ;)

[NightmarE D]

1.) All companies borrow from each other. Everyone knows that. It's nothing new. Microsoft just happens to be blamed more for it than any other company. People need to get over that.

2.) Microsoft first talked about WinFS in the early 90's. It wasn't until 2003 that they started putting it in Longhorn. They worked on it off and on up til then.

3.) Microsoft first talked about widgets back in the late 90's. DesktopX was actually the first program to create the idea of them

4.) The people saying Apple is original are really getting on my nerves. It's well known that they got the UI and the MOUSE from Xerox

5.) "It's better to be a PIRATE than to join the Navy" who said that? oh yeah STEVE JOBS

6.) The creator of this thread is an obvious fanboy who just wanted to get some people flaming each other. He knew that would happen when he was creating the thread.

7.) I think most will agree that these threads are getting old and are pointless because the ones who create them only accept their opinion and nobody elses.

[insurektion]

1. WinFS is implemented in the client form in Vista. The much larger/complex version that spans networks and the internet will not be its full form until Vista server is released or after.

2. Macs are not always more stable than Windows machines. I have seen a powerbook crash more times in the past year than my computer has since I've had it( almost 3 years). OS X didn't just close some apps, it showed a mac BSOD and had to be shut off by holding the power button

3. more logical? do you have any specific examples? sure it seems logical to you, you're a mac user. Stuff on Windows seems logical to me because I use Windows. I have lived with right click for over 10 years. Steve Jobs doesn't think Mac users need a right mouse button. Is option+click really logical?

1. WinFS's ****** child of the same name is implemented. They didn't really touch on their original idea of a NEW filesystem (which I had been excited about)

2. True not always. but more often than not. Also if an app is freezing and their is nothing wrong with your base install of OSX than usually you can killl the app without hurting stability on you machine (I have only once had to reboot from a crash on my former Powerbook.

3. Logical like when Im moving a file around I can hold it over an icon and it will open that folder, and than navagate while holding a file to move. Logical like the file structure being based on BSD. Programs all in one spot, user layout is better. It just feels cleaner imo. But I know some who will disagree. You mean ctrl-click, and it was logical for back in the day. Ever try explaining right click to a n00b. Anyways they have a 2 button standard mouse now (that I dont like but thats another matter) and I was using a 2 button mouse on my PB so its not an issue really.

Also Im on a PC now (like the games loathe the interface) after being on a mac for 6 months PC just felt 'dirty'. Windows just had an incomplete feel to it.

You also didnt address how MS hasn't really innovated with anything since 95. The added an integrated (and insecure) web browser in 98 and 2000 was a good move to a more solid core. But the interface only got a skin and a most freq. used programs panel in the start bar.

OSX Got Dashboard (f12; bam: notes, weather, stocks, scores) expose is nice for finding the window you want when you have 6,7, or 14 windows open.

AS for software take another look nowadays and you will be surprised at the QUALITY offering of alot of software. Games are about the only shortcoming on a mac but I would trade back if I could.

Ahh shut the fuk up

Why did you even click *oldschool styles*

post reported

[Unholy Moley!]

I'm not a fan of OSX because, quite frankly, I'm not into all those new features or graphical ****. However, OSX is way far ahead of WinXP and the new version of windows that is suppost to match the OSX qualities isn't even out yet. Microsoft copies and lags behind.

[Blackice]

To the author:

I wouldn't agree with the other people here accusing you of fanboyism, but I do find your post very ill-informed. Microsoft is being very innovative. I seperate your post into four parts: Desktop Search, Media, Vista's UI, and IE.

Desktop Search

Yeah, Microsoft intended to make search faster by overhauling the filesystem by adding another layer. "WinFS", which ran on top of NTFS (Which is an actual filesystem) was intended to make searches easier.

Of course, it was never implemented, so it doesn't really count. If you think unimplemented things count, it used used Apple's concept of 'stacks', saved searches that behave as folders. They patented it in the mid 90's. WinFS was designed to use stacks all around the filesystem, not just for quick search.

When it comes to desktop search, I honestly don't know (probably a Windows shareware vendor), but Google's attempt at Google Desktop Search, was to create an index beforehand, so searches didn't take so long. It also searched inside files so you didn't need to know the file's name. MSN Desktop Search, aside from copying the name "Desktop Search", was a direct ripoff. Apple's "Spotlight" search, was jumping into the game. Bringing back stacks, and adding the same type of quick searches GDS was well known for.

Actually, WinFS has a lot to do with search, but not in the way you're thinking of. WinFS is a relational database system, based around metadata, and also has unified data types. Basically, with the WinFS technologies, you'd be able to tell the system: "show me all the documents from John that were edited by Andy, but were not edited after the 21st October". WinFS would then use the Contact unified type to determine what you mean by John and Andy, and filter by relationships between data. It extends dramatically what you can do with searches on your computer - searching by metadata and relationships, not by filename. That's what WinFS affects. The only reason its very fast with lots of data is because its built on SQL Server 2005 "Yukon". So it searches fast, but that's not the main thing with WinFS.

Also, you talk about Virtual Folders (not "stacks", which are data visualisation - part of the Shell) as being copied from Apple. Firstly, you have to understand that a Virtual Folder under WinFS is a group of items with similar metadata. So, basically, I'd have a virtual folder that says "this VF contains all the pictures on the computer taken in May". When you open it, WinFS's database (which is based on metadata), would filter the picture items by their metadata and display that in a folder. WinFS is far beyond anything Apple have, and is without a doubt the most innovative peice of software in the world. But WinFS doesn't have any idea of the file/folder heirarchy that common filesystems have, so it sorts out information by using these virtual folders. Remember back in the day when Microsoft were saying that there would be a paradigm shift from folders? Well this is what they were talking about. They just thought the market weren't ready, so added file/folder emulation in WinFS.

Also, as regards MSN Desktop Search: accusing them of copying the name "Desktop Seach" is ridiculous - what on Earth were they supposed to call it? "MSN Monkey Brains"? They had near-instant searching with the indexing service since Windows 2000, and MSN DS just optimised it a bit without copying at all from Apple, Google, Copernicus, or anyone else. Microsoft didn't "bring back" stacks, nor did they copy Google/Apple with Desktop Search.

Media

Back in its heyday, RealAudio/RealPlayer was actually pretty good. Quicktime had been out for a number of years, for Mac OS as well as Windows. What is now known as Windows Media Player used to be "Video for Windows", and used the avi container. Video for Windows was essentially a copy of Quicktime. When streaming video became more popular than local video, Microsoft rebranded it.

And Windows media only 'works' if you're running a Windows-based PC. Whereas Real has good software for the Mac and Linux, Microsoft did a horrible job on the Mac player, eventually contracting an outside company to turn it into a quicktime plugin. They don't support Linux at all.

Saying that back when RP was good, it used to be good, is sort of obvious. VfW was a set of technologies (not a single player), and didn't copy QuickTime at all. Microsoft had to make a competitive peice of software, and if mac OS could do it, Windows could do. The important thing is that the technologies are completley seperate (share no code), and have different features. They weren't as inventive here, it's true, but they quickly patched up the gap, and today the platforms are, by the strictest judges, at least equal.

Oh, and Microsoft have realised WMP for mac didn't work, and discontinued it. They didn't really care too much about that peice of software, and it was always optional. Real's software is riddled with internet registrations and a bloated UI. I wouldn't advise my enemies to use it. With WMP, at least you just set it up and play. At the end of the day, Microsoft is a corporation, and the mac platform wasn't making them any money for WMP (it was free), so the shareholders cut it. Linux would be the same story - charging for use would be unfavourable to the linux community, and lack of profits unfavourable to the MS shaeholders.

Vista's UI

What? Are you kidding me? Microsoft has always copied Apple when it comes to user interfaces, and it became really blatant when they were working on Windows 3.0, when they even hired Susan Kare (designer of the Mac OS icons) to do the Windows 3.0 icons as well. Windows 95 is also a copy (move the start menu to the top of the screen, make the cursor black, and the icons to the right hand side rather then the left).

They also only started codenaming their user interfaces starting with Windows XP, which is the only time they changed it in years (and was right after OS X came out). OS X's UI, codenamed Aqua, was suddenly met by OS XP's UI, codenamed Luna.

And hell, if you still don't believe me, there's even a video showing how much of a ripoff the Vista UI is.

You aren't actually talking about Vista there. I'm not gong to comment on Win 3.0 or 95, because their UIs were terrible. Even for the time. Apple had Microsoft there.

Codenaming a UI happens when the UI is a major feature of the product - as all major features should have a name/codename. Microsoft took the UI seriously in XP, so called it "Luna", and with Vista, they're taking it even more seriously - "Aero".

You're right, I still don't believe you. You've presented no evidence, and that video is the worst thing in history for convincing people. It doesn't show any sort of similar features between Microsoft and Apple. Ooh, so they both have some sort of widgets, and both a FOX widget! That doesn't show anything - widgets have been around before Tiger, and the FOX widget is made by a third party. They are implemented in very different ways on the two platforms, and that video is so terrible that it just emphasies this. The beggingin part with the finder makes no sense, and the alt-tab experiences are not even similar. Vista offers you live previews of the windows INSIDE the glassy alt-tab box (OSX doesn't, as the video shows), and it doesn't sort them like Expose - it uses DWM to to Flip3D. OSX doesn't do anything like it. That video itself proves you wrong.

Internet Explorer

Actually, they were both pretty terrible (Anyone remember Netscape's <blink> tag?) but Microsoft had, and continues to have, a fear that if something is used worldwide and open, then Microsoft's dominance will begin to slip. Remember, they only made a clone of CP/M, and got to where they are today though no-good business tactics (as well as illegal) and being in the right place at the right time.

Netscape, being very popular and available for Mac, Windows, and Unix systems, is seen as a threat. So, after licensing the original Mosaic code from Spyglass, they build IE. Of course, they never paid Spyglass a dime, but that's another story.

So they take IE, mold it into Windows as much as possible, then force it on their users in Windows 98, saying it cannot be removed (though it could, and Microsoft got burned for that).

The hope is, if everyone's running IE and viewing ActiveX websites, instead of Netscape and Java, then nobody could use another OS if they wanted to use the web.

ActiveX didn't catch on as well as they hoped, since Java was popular for the language, as well as applets. So they make their own JVM (Java Virtual Machine) which is shipped with Windows. The Microsoft JVM is incompatible and does not follow the specifications that Sun licensed them the technology under, meaning MSJVM applets wouldn't run on other JVMs for other platforms. When that failed (Sun sued and won), Microsoft makes a clone. C# and .Net CLR to replace Java and the JVM.

Actually, the thing that burns me up the most is the last paragraph. OK, Microsoft's JVM was bad, but .NET is not a Java clone. It is obvious you are not a .NET coder, or you would know that they are noway the same. And with .NET 2.0 and 3.0, .NET is even further in front. Java is slow and very unwise for desktop applications, whereas .NET works well on the desktop and the web. .NET uses JIT compiling, and includes VB.NET and you can add .NET lanugages - it's not limited to C#. It's not a clone, it was a replacement for COM (it was in desperate need). Microsoft took a few ideas, OK, but on the whole, it's miles ahead of Java.

You are forgetting the many innovations Microsoft are making. Look across alll of their product lines - esoecially the Windows client. You can see massive innovation. I'm too tired to go into them, but I have many times before. Just get the facts: Microsoft are indeed innovating.

[Matt T]

of course MS would market stuff the add in as revolutionary... you even used the word MARKET yourself, what do you think marketing is... do you expect them to say something like, " well this is a entirely new feature we just added to the OS, but it's actually nothing new at all since everyone else has it." any idea how idiotic that sounds?

Yes, that what I think they should say. Just not in those words. How about "a revolutionary new feature for Windows" - they way, people know it's a revolutionary new feature for Windows, but Microsoft aren't making it sound like they invented the idea. What's wrong with that?

and it's not like apple isn't doing the same, how 'bout dashboard, they pretty much say they invented the idea of widgets in one of steve's keynotes. spotlight, which they marketed as another revolutionary product when msn desktop search was out before them.

They may not have invented widgets, but they invented the concept of integrating widgets into an operating system, and (as far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong) they also invented the concept of having a separate layer in which the widgets live, so widgets don't clutter your desktop and take up space; they're out of your way when you don't need them, and only a split second away when you do.

And it's impossible to compare Spotlight to MSN Desktop Search because both are very different. Spotlight is a component of the operating system - MSN Desktop Search is an application sitting on top of an operating system. Can you integrate MSN Search technology into applications like you can with Spotlight? No. Can you create Smart Folders, Smart Mailboxes and Smart Groups with MSN Search? No. And for the record, Spotlight was announced before MSN Desktop Search was.