.:Computer Defense:.

HTRegz,

I disagree. In your words, if Windows isn’t in the host it doesn’t violate the EULA. Why does that restriction exist? They are making it, at the very least, undesireable to run Windows under another environment. This (somewhat) passively protects Windows from being relegated to add-on emulation software to run a few programs (that’s how I see most people using it with Parallels). It is reinforcing Windows’ position as desktop software, so people aren’t using Quickbooks that happens to be for Windows, they are using Windows.

I don’t understand what the objection to running their lower cost OSes under emulation is. The best argument I see (and I could be wrong) is that Microsoft likes to lock up features for use in their higher tiered products only. I guess they see the (legal) ability to run Windows under emulation a feature.

I see their marketing strategy in the negative because it preys on consumer flaws. People are cheap and tend to go for deals. I can see a lot of people having to buy more than one copy of Windows because of the limitations. I know a lot of people who own copies of XP Home and XP Pro, and there only a few versions of XP.

The whole shelf price argument is a little amusing to me, because most people’s computers won’t run Vista well. So they’ll get their copy when they buy a new one. If I was a Best Buy and had to stop seven different models of every computer because of the numerous OS versions I’d be kind of pissed. I’m not sure how they handle that.

As you said, I can’t get angry at the companies for making money. That’s true. But, I can object to how they do that. I don’t like that their market plan relies on tricking consumers into buying more than one copy. In this comparison, Apple is making a complete product – hardware and software, while Microsoft is imposing an arbitrary licensing restriction to make more money. I don’t really see how the EULA and SLA are very relevant to each other in this respect.

I looked up punishment, and one definition was: “To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.” Calling emulation a sin is certainly subjective, but having to buy a more expensive version of Windows for a non-feature (paying more for the same thing, since you don’t want the higher features) is kind of a penalty. Of course no one is forcing you to buy it, so it’s a loose fit.

No use in arguing with this 24 year old Canadian three year certificate Windows
and Office expert — when a person’s livelihood is on the line it’s impossible to
change their minds.

Tha fanboy is him. A Windows fanboy who is threatened and scared to death
of Unix and OS X.

His career depend on people continuing to use Windows and there continuing
to exist a demand for his “professional services”

Hope he stay in Canada — it only improves the competitive advantage of us.

He writes:

” My fiance, who is not computer illiterate but beyond checking her email, surfing the net, chatting with friends and using Office doesn’t touch do much, hates OS X.”

There you have it. A couple of losers. She loves Office though.

What a couple of Windows fanboy and girls.

He should read this:

The Trouble with Vista

and this:

Vista and More: Piecing Together Microsoft’s DRM Puzzle

“Point 3: I’m confused on how Windows wastes screen real estate compared to OS X… Both have a bar on the bottom and a bar on the top… Both allow desktop icons… Where’s the wasted space”

Well, I don’t think it’s a *huge* difference, but in OS X the menu for the active application is always at the top, whereas in Windows (all version except Office on Vista) the menus are in each window and, therefore, eat up screen real estate.

For example, in Photoshop on a Mac, there’s no “File Edit View” stuff at the top of your photo when you’re working on it.

Again, not such a *huge* deal, but it does mean a slight edge to screen real estate in OS X.

You mention your girlfriend’s dislike of OS X*. The things you mention: application launching, lack of task bar, these are personal preferences. Nevermind the fact that you could put the Applications folder in the dock and use that as a launch list, and there is an application called Witch (link below) that shows all running windows by program, similar to what the task bar (theoretically) shows you. (I think it’s hard to use the taskbar effectively if you have more than half a dozen windows open.) The point is that OS X makes some decisions that differ from Windows. Having application-wide menu ensure that you always know how to quit a program, rather than trusting the developers not to invent their own method (I’ve seen some good ones) and Fitt’s law. I like it. Although you can probably address most switcher angst and customize it how you like, it won’t fit everybody. That’s just personal preference.

One thing that is interesting to me is Vista advertisements. The features: Security, Instant Search, Attractive Usable GUI, Good for Laptops(?), Collaboration, Photos, Backup, Easy Networking, Encryption, DVD Authoring, 3 new Games, Movie Authoring.

Those are paraphrased from Microsoft’s edition comparison page (link below). Can you really see a Mac user getting very excited about any of that? Mac viruses and malware aren’t a problem. (Vista is fixing a problem that exists on XP, not OS X), Spotlight, Aqua (I bet it gets revamped in 10.5, too.) The laptop-specific features don’t seem that hot. Collaboration isnt built-in, but there are inexpensive solutions for most things. iPhoto, Time Machine (of the future!), networking is pretty damn easy, File Vault, iDVD, and iMovie. Granted, games is a sore spot, but they are advertising is three starter games that seem like they are of minesweeper caliber – not that big of a deal. And you can run Windows under boot camp to play any game you want, if you’re that into it (again, just a choice).

My point is that the advertisements are going to be much more effective on existing Windows customers than Mac customers (cheap shot http://daringfireball.net/2002/10/microsofts_answer_to_ellen_feiss). If you admit that OS X and Vista are equivalent in a lot of features (although I would add much more to a list for OS X) you can’t help but feel the sting of history. If these are features that you want or need to upgrade to a new OS for, up until this point OS X was the product that could provide them, not Windows.

>>If OS X doesn’t do everything for you… why run it in the first place?? The “cool factor”?

If you like the way it works, and find the drawbacks of the alternative undesireable, of course you want to run it. Same goes for anything. This seems like a slam on OS X for not being perfect. That’s kind of silly. Wait until 10.5, then slam it for not being perfect.

>> It actually has security measures built in (unlike OS X) Microsoft has taken security seriously.

Saying that OS X doesn’t have *any* security measures built-in is pretty far fetched. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty damn good. I’m more concerned with the end result, rather than how “serious” some companies. Bottom line is I know a great deal of Windows users who complain about security issues and not so many Mac users. As far as Vista, we’ll have to wait a while to judge how well it does in the real world.

(http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/02/06/microsofts-vista-anti-virus-solution-slammed/)
>Microsoft’s much-hyped anti-virus solution, Live OneCare…failed to pass a series of tests that are required to achieve [Virus Bulletin]’s VB100 certification.

Virus Bulletin doesn’t seem to be a fly by night security firm, at least according to wiipedia. While not 100% condemning, it’s not exactly a good thing.

I don’t think name calling on either side helps. You make quite a lot of broad generalizations to that effect in the original post. Mention it if you like, but it seems to be a large source of proof for your arguments.

You argue that emulation is a business technology. I disagree. Emulation let’s you run something else. That could be quickbooks, or it could be genealogy software.

* I’m really curious how OS X looks antiquated next to Windows. To me, one of the most striking differences is the text anti-aliasing. Comparing the same web page on Windows and OS X really makes Windows look old, at least to me.

Vista Comparisons Page
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx?wt_svl=20052a&mg_id=20052b

Witch, a window/application switcher
http://www.manytricks.com/witch/

Sorry that got a little long and off-topic. It was in response to a bunch of separate things said so far. Here’s a few more…

>>Stealth mode” is nothing more than a gimmicky marketing term… Although you’re right it does have a firewall… wait… so does XP

Stealth mode isn’t a gimick, but (from what I’ve googled) it does appear to need some work. As for the XP firewall, is it enabled by default?

>>Requiring Authorization before an app first runs and to install…Haven’t Mac users been Mocking this and didn’t Apple just release a commercial making fun of this?

Programs that need to do stuff in protected areas should (of course) have to authenticate to install. Most can just be dragged into a folder (as you know.) The point of those commercials is that popping up dialogs for everything you do isn’t the answer to the security problem. I don’t have stuff like that popping up on my Mac. Do you? (Remember Jaguire? Keychain sure used to be a pain in the ass.)

As for those wifi exploits, those guys didn’t really show all their cards, so I’m not inclined to trust some of their insinuations. I know you don’t like Gruber, he obviously likes Apple, but I think he tries to be fair. His writeup on that topic was extensive.

And don’t the knee jerk reactions of all the internet heroes dissaude you from real discussion. No one cares what they say.

HTRegz : Ahem, did you just point out that M$ are finally implementing some form of access control? Wow! quick off the mark aren’t they?

a quote from M$ Technet’s pages “Even more damaging, because the user is an administrator, the malicious programs could use the administrator’s access control data to infect core operating system files and, in some instances, to become nearly impossible to remove.”

So what they are saying , as are you that they’ve always had a boneheaded approach to login and they are only just getting to it.

The reason we’re taking the Mickey out of UAC is it’s crappy implementation.
Tokens? What is this, a Casino? Frankly tha fact that UAC runs on top of the kernal code several layers up means it isn’t all that secure and people will soon find ways round it (or rather under it)so they can mess with base code which is what you really don’t want. Rather new to this whole inbuilt security thing aren’t you?

The WiFi Vulns were a set up as not only did they use a third party card they altered to work on the ‘book that they knew they could hack the drivers on but also they needed to be directly connected, not through the net.

When you have a problem that most exploits require someone silly to install Malware control over who can install what is very important so in addition to seperate accounts with diferent priveledges a further degree of control is very security minded. Duh!

As for arguing over the semantics of Free Berkely Software Distribution Unix that’s getting rather petty and desperate isn’t it?

“Were the wifi vulns trivial?”

Given that we have yet to see proof of it working on internal WiFi cards beyond “Somebody told me that it does but didn’t show me”, and that you need to be in active scanning mode in order to be exploited, I’d say that it’s not a huge threat. This is the thing with many flaws found on the Mac, there are too many “If you have x set as y” conditions. Vista appears to be in the same boat now security wise.

“Martin: My response: Of course OS X should run fine on 4.5 year old hardware… it’s more than 4.5 years old… However our opinions of “running fine” obviously differ.. I’m running on a 1.42Ghz PPC that I bought a year ago… and I don’t even have transparencies and genie effect, etc… I also don’t know that OS X does far more… maybe a few fancy effects by comparison but that’s it…”

Then I suggest you re-install OS X or get your machine checked out because something is seriously wrong if you have no transparencies or genie effects. Either that or you’re lying. I have an 800MHz G4 powerbook that has both of those and the genie effect is very smooth. Even my now defunct 400MHz G3 iMac with 384MB of RAM (7 years old) had transparencies and such with very few problems.

And too many people judge the insides of an operating system on what they see. Yes OS X has a “few fancy effects” over XP from a user point of view, but in terms of the underlying architecture you have an entirely new graphics system in OS X which requires more processing power. I doubt anyone would say that all Vista has over XP is a few fancy effects. The same goes for OS X. PC users are complaining about Vista being slow compared to XP because they are used to XP which does very little processor intensive by comparison.

Although you didn’t do your research (on A. Macstrawman) you gotta be careful … the Macalope rudely outted me for wrongly thinking on day 3 of his blog that he might be someone he wasn’t. (Macalope’s identity is ambiguous) The Macalope and Daring Fireball gang are just that … a gang of Mac (using/loving) Pseudo Intellectuals who every now and then write great editotrial commentary … but every few days they go way overboard in their critique; without mercy. I just wish they would play nice rather inject their cliquish behavior all over the Mac web. A lot of blogs are beginning to write like these two blogs in order to get hits. I personally love for people to point out my mistakes, but I like the chance to correct them before they go off and write some diatribe about my mistake on their site.

My 2 cents on a couple of these topics:

====On Computer Security====

HTEgz you said; “I’d be interested in seeing you write that… I don’t think you could blog about security nonsense in Vista… it actually has security measures built in (unlike OS X)…”

What do you mean “unlike OS X”? What does Vista have built in that hasn’t already been in OS X? You sort of poo-pooed the list of features that Limeybloke provided but didn’t offer that Vista had anything radically new in the realm of security. Educate us if you know something we don’t. If you just mean a built-in virus checker, I would say that PCs NEED this provided, whereas Mac’s historically have not. I have run a virus checker (3rd party) on my Macs for years but have not had it actually find ANYTHING trying to infect my system. The recent Mac vulnerabilities that have been much bally-hooed have been either (a) never turned into an active virus, trojan or other exploit (b) have been patched by Apple before anyone could use them (c) have impacted so few machines to such a minor degree it is hardly newsworthy. “Were the wifi vulns trivial?” YES. Did they impact ANYBODY expect in a demo using contrived 3rd party wi-fi hardware? Meanwhile thousands or millions of PCs are routinely infected and many are hijacked, unbeknownst to ther owners, and are out there spreading more viruses and/or spam. I have PC friends who have had to had their systems wiped and reinstalled even WHEN they are running anti-virus software. Of course we are talking pre-Vista and I believe there is no dispute about the lack of security of these machines/OS’s.

I hope Vista is better at security than XP. It must be. But that is little excuse for you to state, inaccurately, and very much in the form of the “fanboy” statements that you purport to despise, that Mac OS X has no security features.

HTEgz you said; Requiring Authorization before an app first runs and to install… Wow.. that sounds like UAC in Vista… Haven’t Mac users been Mocking this and didn’t Apple just release a commercial making fun of this?

I believe Apple is mocking the implementation. Apparently, Vista’s implementation of this worthy idea is perceived by some as much more intrusive and frequent than OS X’s implementation. Not being a Vista owner, I would love to hear from an actual Vista owner for their perceptions.

HTEgz you said; Not being constantly logged in as Administrator… This shouldn’t happen anywhere…

I may be mistaken, but I thought this was one of the big problems with Windows XP/2000/ME on home machines: default configuration to have admin privileges. Maybe it SHOULDN”T happen anywhere, but by design of Windows XP/2000/ME install procedures, it apparently happens more often than not. Am I wrong?

==== On Virtualization -====
HTEgz you said: If your primary OS doesn’t do what it needs.. switch…

A silly statement. People use 2 OS’s because neither does EVERYTHING they want.

HTEgz you said: Microsoft is preventing of virtualization of home editions of Vista because they want to make more money (but not as an attack on OS X users, as they do have alternatives).
Apple is preventing the installation of OS X on non-Apple labeled computers because they want to make more money..

Both true. Neither company makes decisions to be “fair” to everybody, or to take “revnge” or “apply a tax” to users they don’t like. They try to increase the bottom line. But this is where the confusion sets in. Wouldn’t Microsoft make MORE money inducing their virtualization customers to buy Vista Home Basic than XP? Do they really think a Parallels user is going to spring big bucks for the high-cost versions of Vista? Do they NOT want a Mac user to run Vista? How does that make them more money?

Perhaps this part of the licence is a concession to Dell, HP, and Gateway. That is the only way it makes any sense. Meanwhile it SEEMS arbitrary.

By the way, your suggestion to use XP instead of Vista is practical with one exception. Somebody may want to install Vista on Mac with Boot Camp AND Parallels. Parallels for the occasional office type App, and Boot camp to run games and maybe as an alternative to be able to get on the internet as a PC as well (internet gaming maybe). You don’t want XP if you are getting on the internet, when Vista is more secure.

HTEgz you said: Martin: My response: Of course OS X should run fine on 4.5 year old hardware… it’s more than 4.5 years old… However our opinions of “running fine” obviously differ.. I’m running on a 1.42Ghz PPC that I bought a year ago…

2 points you continue to ignore:

I. OS X is not one OS, it is at least 3 currently useful and separate OS’s (10.2, 10.3, and 10.4) and soon to be four (with 10.5). These are not minor upgrades but major releases. 10.4 is as far from 10.1 as Vista is from XP. When someone says they have 4.5 year old hardware running OS 10.4, they are NOT talking about a 4 year old OS.

You yourself say Vista “compares” to OS 10.4. So please concede the following simple factual point. OS 10.4 provides comparable performance to Vista with much less of a hardware investment and without even having to upgrade to recent hardware.

II. As for your Mac Mini, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that you need more memory. Microsoft and Apple both tend to under recommend on their memory for their OS’s , and hardware suppliers: Apple, Dell etc. tend to under supply memory on their machines. 512 MB is too little for your Mini and your expectations of multi-tasking.

But for reference, I am running two machines just a bit more capacity than yours and i have no problems. I have a PPC iBook G4 with a 1.33 MHz CPU (slower than yours) but with 768 MB memory. I am running OS 10.3.9 and it runs and multi-tasks great. I am also running OS 10.4 on a 2.0 GHz iMac G5 with only 512 MB memory. No problems there until I open all the iLife Apps at once along with Safari, word processing and OS 9 (to run Outlook Express). Then I slow down. I could make use of some more memory myself. My brother-in-law is running an old 600 MHz iMac G3 with 10.4 but he has 1 GB memory and it runs just fine thank you very much, again with multiple programs running. Can a 600 MHz PC run Vista anything at all, even with lots of memory? I think not.

You are running with hobbled capability. Up your memory and OS X will fly. Stop using a hobbled configuration as proof of anything.

“That says I can’t install OS X on my PC, so why should we expect Microsoft to allow the opposite… In this case, I’d say that Apple hit first and that Microsoft is only responding in kind…”

So what are you talking about? Virtualization or only the ability to run software on a piece of hardware? Those are 2 different things but you talk about each as if they’re the same thing.

Your entire argument needs clarification since you don’t make it clear which thing you’re talking about at different points in your post. I can’t tell if you don’t understand the difference or if you just thought mixing them up on purpose would make your post read better somehow.

“Martin: reread this thread… plenty of people have referred to Vista as XP with pretty graphics”

Let me rephrase that, anyone reasonable would not refer to Vista as XP with pretty graphics. Yes, graphics are a huge part of the upgrade, but the update to the graphics is not just some pretty effects, which is what many people don’t understand with both Vista and OS X. These are HUGE updates.

“Apple well the OS and hardware are of concern to them…. so they should sell a machine that can handle itself initally (yes I realize it’s a mini)…”

As I’ve pointed out, far lesser machines than yours can handle extremely basic stuff. Transparencies and the genie effect work on any Mac sold since 2001 and many sold before (as I said, my old G3 iMac which was bought in 1999 could handle them fine). The only things your machine wouldn’t handle are some Core Image effects. However, unlike many of the graphics technologies in Vista which just turn off, Core Image, Quartz Extreme etc scale back. While you might not be able to get the ripple effect you can get the gausian blur.

“As for how it looks antiquated.. I find it very Window 3.1ish… Especially things like an Applications Folder… (again this is just personal opinion)”

I’m not sure what you mean by antiquated, or by your previous comment of it having too much of the past? I doubt you would find a System 6 dialogue in OS X, but you can find Windows 3.1 dialogues in Vista. Most stuff from the classic days has either been scrapped, is deprecated or has been modernised. Much of the stuff from NeXT was year ahead of anything else out there when it was released and that has been modernised.

As for the Applications folder, I’m intrigued as to how you think this is antiquated. Everyone has their own opinion, but you seem be the first person I’ve seen not love the Applications folder over what is on other platforms. I mean, I find the ability to drag an application in there to install it, drag it to the trash to uninstall it and to have everything in neat and tidy packages that appear as a single file a far more elegant solution to the Windows solution of throwing files all other the place. I don’t really see how it’s a bad thing, though from a Windows perspective I can probably see how it could be weird as you generally never go into your Applications folder.

You know, if Microsoft comes out and says Windows can only run on certain brands, I’d be fine with that! Just like Apple, that’s up to them to decide that. In that situation your analogy and your point would be perfecly reasonable. I’d agree with you.

But that’s NOT what they’re doing. They’ve not banning certain brands. They’re making a distinction between real and virtual hardware. To me, that’s not something that I think Microsoft needs to know about my computer.

That’s the issue here, and it has nothing to do with Apple or Macs at all, really. I think you’ve just latched on to onlline Mac users as a blog subject because you think it’s fun, but the problems here can be entirely explained and critisized without talking about Macs at all.

In that context your argument of “If Apple can do this then why can’t Microsoft?” falls pretty flat. I’ve explained my concerns in a way that ONLY involves Microsoft and the Microsoft user and I think my critisism is good enough to stand on its own.

Gosh, what a waste of bandwidth. Seems like all you guys use your computers for are to surf the net and write stuff in blogs that have no effect what so ever on the world around you. One can do that on any computer/operating system so what is the big deal?

“However I’ll put this out for an answer.. Is there a GUI that can be used to manage launchd and SystemStartup or do they have to be managed separately? I’d rather have all my start-up items in a single location (sort of like MS Config does) than go hunting all over for them..”

Only place I can think of is the Login Items in system preferences (under accounts) though that’s just user specific, I’m not sure what to do if you want stuff on the entire system.

“As for my meaning.. I mean when I use OS X, I’m reminded of the way things were done on Windows 3.1 in regards to the lack of a taskbar, system tray (although this semi-exists), and start menu… Now only from the Windows world but also from the Linux world…”

Up until Windows 95, Windows was based quite a bit on the original Mac OS. I doubt anyone would deny that. The classic Mac OS has never had anything that resembles the task bar. You could say the dock is similar to the taskbar in OS X as they both deal with application launching, storing of minimised windows, notifications etc, but they approach them in different ways. If anything the closest thing to the task bar would be the menu bar in OS X.

A lot of people comment on stuff like the lack of a start menu, though Windows is designed around using the start menu as the point from which everything begins. On a Mac your desktop is where everything begins. This is shown in the different approaches to file system design. Windows is designed in a way that isn’t extremely easy to follow, where as OS X has a much cleaner and IMO a much more sensible layout to the file system. Then again, this is purely a case of to each their own.

William: while commenting on this blog I am also writing programs and editing footage to make its way onto DVD whilst also talking to several friends online. I doubt anybody posting here is just sitting at their computer all day refreshing this page

Apple will never change that portion of its EULA. Ever. Their entire strategy in the business world is based on the idea that they provide the entire user experience from the ground up. Steve Jobs has pointed several times in the past to a favorite quote of his which is “people who want to write software should make their own hardware.” That is how Apple operates. The notion that they would retry their (non Jobs) strategy of lisensing the OS is foolish because they have built their empire on the complete experience. One does not have to worry about hardware conflicts and dealing with different computer makers when one uses a Mac, there is only Apple. If they started allowing people to install OSX on any machine, it would mean starting to have to deal with problems due to people not using their hardware. The whole point of their strategies is that there aren’t any extra problems caused by outside forces. Or at least as few as possible. There is a reason for this strategy, it produces a more streamlined and friendly user experience. Look at the game console industry, the same strategy is used there to exclusion. The main advantage to the broad lisencing scheme currently used by Microsoft is (or was) interoperability. The problem for MS is that that is becoming less and less of a problem. As interoperability is becoming eaiser with other platforms, the reasons to use Windows are dwindling. It is a problem for Microsoft. By controling all the variables in the system, Apple is able to make their user experience more coheisive than when one uses a Dell or HP or whatnot. It is the same reason that the iPod was such a success while MS’s efforts to license it’s DRM didn’t work out.

Compatablitly is another reason why MS has stayed on top, and it is something that is choking it as well. I’m not sure how much Vista abandons the past, but my understanding is that it is not the drastic measure that abandoning the old System 9 for System X was. Again, Apple’s control of the system allowed them to upgrade the entire user experience and not worry about compatability. You could run a virtual machine of the old OS, but every single computer that was bought from Apple after introducing OSX was shipped with OSX. This allowed OSX to be much more stable than if it had been a requirement for them to remain backwards compatable. More secure as well.

Wether or not their increased price for virtualization is fair or not seems to be for another discussion. To me it seems a completely artificial limitation as I see no technical reason why the lower end versions cannot be run on Macs, but that is all I can say on the subject, I am not well versed in it. All I wanted to say was that the notion that Apple was trying to screw Windows customers or that they would change their licensing agreement is nonsense because it is the backbone of their strategy not to allow people to use OSX on other systems. They cannot control the experience there.

That is all.

Me again!

OK two last things as I think we have now addressed nearly all your FUD if people bother to read between the flaming and notice what you had no response to.

i) According to your link not only did they need to use an unecessary third party peripheral with Microsoft – style sloppily coded drivers, but they also needed to put the card into active scanning mode.
So they’d need access to the actual Mac and need to be logged in in the first place!
Or happen to be trying to perform their ‘hack’ when it’s in that mode (typically only when you first connect to the local network and for about 30secs)
Wow, what a huge vulnerability. Far worse than those typically reported for any Windows build.
Silly me, it must be Macs that account for all the Bot nets.

ii) I forgot to riposte earlier; Stealth mode.
When visiting a site that is not fully trusted or taking part in an IM/IRC chat surely it’s considered more secure to be in a mode where no unauthorised code is exchanged and no details of your platform/browser/net id/IP address are given thus giving malicious people no info to go on about the best way to try and ruin your day.
Not that they can currently do anything to me.
But it’s yet another security feature that’s provided ‘just in case’.

PS it seems to me a lot of your dissatifaction with your Mac Mini boils down to;
a) not enough included memory.

I quite agree they should have more as standard although if you had a comparable Dell with the same specs and Vista it wouldn’t do nearly as much at once. Heck it’d hardly run!

b) It doesn’t work like a Windows machine so you don’t always know where stuff is.

Funnily enough I always find if you put a total novice in front of OSX they’re up and running very quickly and are far less hesitant to play with everthing than if you put them in front of a Windows machine.

I also find if you put an MCSE in front of one they complain t’il the cows come home basically cos it’s not what they’ve got used to.
A few simple pointers along the lines of ‘why would you have to do that? Just look where it would be sensible to put it, not where you’re used to it being. & Just try what seems like a simple way to achieve it.” has them saying things like “oh, is that all you do” but usually leaves them unsettled because they haven’t clicked through enough dialog boxes or had to do enough typing or selecting.

Oh well, to each his own, but do try and get the facts right.

Must be your most popular post yet? Just reminds of that Elvis cover: “10 million fans can’t be wrong” (-;

First off let me start with two things. 1. I use a Macintosh. 2. I do not care what anyone else uses. 3. I don’t put anyone down for what they use.

Now let’s get down to the nitty-gritty of this. What really bugs me is a lot of people’s assumption that a majority of market share impies a superior product? There are three main reasons why Microsoft holds the number one position:

1. Marketing superiority – this was the one thing Redmond actually got right. If you produce a usable, if marginal operating system that will run on most computer hardware and licence it accordingly you will acheive market dominance.

2. Self-preserving, lazy IT “professionals” – These people have spent a lot of time and money learning a single way of doing things. Since said company has acheived market dominance and said individuals have learned said company’s usable, if marginal system, then of course they are going to extoll the virtues of that which they make their living off of. They already know what they know, most everyone uses what they know, so why expend any time or effort learning something different when the self-propagating world in which they live gives them no reason to?

3. People are cheap – Why would the average Joe Consumer spend $1000 on a Macintosh when they can spend $300 on any given entry level PC, when they both, for all intents and purposes, do the same thing? Especially when they purchase these machines from some chain retailer that employs just over minimum wage, rather ignorant individuals.

And then there is always this talk of viruses, many people seem to fail to understand the difference between a proof-of-concept and an actual in the wild virus. It’s amazing how everyone likes to latch on to one or two proof-of-concepts, when they are seemingly at peace with the fact that Windows boasts 70,000 malicious piece of codes. And if memory serves correctly, the one that barely made it into the wild was not a virus, but a non self-propagating trojan. Yes they do make anti-virus software for they Mac. Do I use it? No. Why, because the simple truth of the matter is because they do not effect me, and why would I spend my money to help protect from passing anything along to a Windows user?

Also, I always wish someone could enlighten me to one pertinent function that I cannot do on my Macintosh that I can do with Windows? Do not come at me with some system specific nuance or games. I don’t know about all of you but I regard a computer as a tool not a toy. If I wanted to waste my time and money on games I would go out and purchase a console.

Again, I use what I use because my personal preference dictates so. I realized a long time ago that computing should be an unobtrusive part of my life, and that the computer is a machine that should only do what I tell it to do. If you are happy with Windows then more power to you, because as I said before, I really don’t care what anyone else uses. Am I a fanboy just because I like what works? Just don’t put me down for not being one of the “90%.”

As for the EULA it is as simple as this. Microsoft realizes that if you are running a Mac, then in their minds you must have more disposable cash to begin with, because even an entry-level Mac doesn’teven come close to the price-point of an entry level Windows box. So if you can spend more money on your Mac, then you should have no problem ponying up the extra cash for a more expensive version of Vista. One does not become the largest company in the world without an innate sense of greed and a certain willingness to screw it’s customers three ways from Sunday.

That was three things in the beginning, my bad.

I have read through most of the posts here, and had initially developed a running dialog of responses, but then decided that there was too much hype and too much flaming going on for me to adequately respond to many of the posters here.

I will address a couple of points on my own, and move on – and I hope people realize that these are not meant to be flames, but in fact are relevant points that I feel need to be shared.

First off, I am almost 36 years old, been playing with computers since I was 12, and have the most experience with Windows-based PCs, with Linux and MacOS having almost equal time as second place. I know PCs better, and have used them longer, and have made my living supporting them because it is the most prevalent technology out there. That being said:

1) The initial debate started over whether Apple users had any more reason to display public outrage at the M$ EULA regarding the non-virtualization allowances for home editions of Vista. Arguments were made back and forth how Apple, it its own licensing statements, were politically motivated or motivated by some other factor because they are making the hardware as well, and thus want to be able to secure that their OS is run on their hardware, whereas the M$ EULA disallows the use of virtualization software of their Home version of Vista.

How can no one see that the motivation to sell more hardware is still a profit motive, when all is said and done? How can no one see that HT’s arguments that M$ is providing alternatives, and that the M$ EULA is still *less* restrictive than the Apple License in the first place?

Also, for those arguing that you will need to run Vista for compatibility issues – let me remind you of one very *pertinent fact – and someone illustrated this very well in an earlier post. Mac users say they need to ensure cross-compatibility in an in-house developed spreadsheet, to ensure it works across all platforms in terms of OffixeX and Office 2003 / 2007. Keep in mind, folks, that Office 97, 2000, XP, 2003 *and* 2007 ***ALL RUN ON XP**** – so can you tell me why you *need* Vista again? For the blokes developing *applications* that need to be tested on various platforms, of for those sharing information in documents, spreadsheets, etc. that might run into problems with Vista’s enhanced security, I can understand – however, to say that you only need Vista Home editions to test is utterly flawed in the first place, and sure it makes it easier to be able to drop into an OS without having to reboot, but lets face it – if you feel the need to test out your software / data store / whatever in Vista, you probably want to test in more than just the Home – I can see very few times where you would want to test in Home only and not in Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate. So, the arguments pointing to the M$ EULA and calling it [insert deprecatory remark of choice] are pretty much flawed, pointless, and invalid.

2) RE: the use of a modern OS on semi-antiquated hardware:

http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?s=&showtopic=12974&view=findpost&p=56483

Yes, quite frankly it can. It helps if you know what you are doing when you build a system instead of buying a cheap, slapped together box from a major marketer whose interest is in making the most profit from the bought-in-bulk POS limited upgradeable hardware.

This is still the same rig that I built, on which I installed Win XP SP1, Fedora Core 2, Debian Etch, Gentoo and Jackass! Gentoo, Ubuntu and Xubuntu, and now Vista RC1, RC2 and Ultimate final (3 days ago!). The same rig. The only upgrades, in terms of hardware, are larger drives (started out with 2 15 GB 5400 rpm and immediately went to 7200 RPM drives for performance, and now have 3 drives – a 120, an 80 and a 60 GB drive, all 7200 RPM), the CD ROM became a Memorex 52MAXX CDRW, and the original 100 Mbit NIC is now a NetGear Gigabit NIC (since I have a Gigabit router and am running Gigabit Ethernet on my internal network). Processor is still the same – P4 2.0(A) GHz Northwood CPU with 512KB L2 Cache, 1 GB matched pair of PC2100 RAM and an nVidia GeForce 4 MX 440 based GA (AGP). Amazingly I was able to install *all* of those OS’s – but per Apple’s license, I cannot install OS X any way, manner or fashion on this machine without violating the Licensing statement.

Does this help the argument just a little bit?

Enough of this.

I don’t really think that you have addressed my initial position, HTRegz. I don’t believe that you will concede the possibility that the solution for many people is to purchase a Mac. Or that Microsoft has a serious competitor in Apple now; one that is likely to strip away much of its market share. Or that Apple is five years ahead of Microsoft in OS development and is likely to stay ahead.

HTRegz said:
“Vista is Longhorn renamed… Longhorn Server is still in the works… i wouldn’t call Vista “XP with a pretty face”…”

I was reading the blogs of disgruntled Microsoft programmers several years ago when Longhorn was scrapped. They were the ones who said that Vista was putting a pretty face on XP and that it was like putting “lipstick on a pig” and other derogatory remarks. Who should know better?

Windows XP is not a modern OS. Therefore, Vista, because it is built on XP, is not either. XP is Windows NT with lots of Windows 95 bolted on so that old applications will work. That is part of why Windows 2000 and XP became such a security risk. A modern OS is much harder to crack.

Windows Vista is the equivalent of Apple’s System 8– It is good looking on the outside but it has horrible underpinnings. Longhorn was the equivalent of Apple’s Pink, Taligent and Gershwin; neither Apple nor Microsoft could get a modern OS going.

Buying NExT saved Apple’s ass. It is unclear what Microsoft will be doing to save theirs. Vista is an upgrade to XP with a few parts of Longhorn bolted on. It isn’t enough. What do they do for an encore?

HTRegz said:
“As for 5 updates since 1990.. I question that…
OS X was released in 1999 as OS X Server and the first OS X for the desktop was released in 2001, the same year that XP surfaced…”

Yes, you were right on the date. I meant 1999, not 1990. What I meant was that Mac OSX Beta was released in 1999. since then there was 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. That seemed like five upgrades to me. But, I won’t argue about it. Call it four, if you want.

Of course, Mac OSX wasn’t useful, or even surpassed MacOS 9 until 10.1.5. 10.2 caught up with Windows XP and the later OS’s surpassed it. Vista has a few minor advantages to Mac OSX 10.4 and it should because 10.4 has been out for almost two years. But, for every advantage that Vista has over Tiger; Tiger 10.4 has ten over Vista.

HTRegz said:
“You have to remember that one of the issues Microsoft has always had to fight is backwards compatibility…”

Yes, Microsoft is doing everything it can to keep from losing market share. That is why it is not innovative; you can’t reach for something new without loosening your grip on what you have. Microsoft has everything to lose by innovating: Apple has everything to gain by doing so.

HTRegz said:
“At Apple they worry about pushing forward and don’t always look back..”

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Dropping legacy equipment, perhaps? Apple usually supports equipment for five years. The old software still works, but isn’t supported. Is this a problem? Isn’t five years long enough? Do we still need floppies on Mac’s, or DB25 plugs or SCSI ports? How about NuBus card slots instead of PCIe? When should we let old standards go? Wintel almost never does; it was only last year that they dropped PS/2.

HTRegz said:
“I also disagree that Vista doesn’t compare to OS X 10.4… ”

I was mostly talking about XP’s foundations and architecture; those are antiquated. Vista does nothing fundamental to improve them. Longhorn was supposed to be a completely modern OS like Mac OSX, but Longhorn failed. It proved unmanageable like Apple’s Pink, Taligent and Gershwin. Some parts of Apple’s failed OS’s were bolted onto MacOS 8, but that didn’t make OS 8 modern anymore than bolting parts of Longhorn on XP did for Vista.

HTRegz said:
“As I’ve said and everyone seems to keep ignoring… I’m a Mac user… ”

Why are you so defensive? Microsoft needs to get its act in gear and develop a modern OS. Lying to itself will not solve the fundamental flaws in Vista.

I am not anti-Microsoft. Apple needs competition to keep from becoming complacent like they were in the 1990′s. Perhaps, that competition will come from Linux. But, I’m really hoping that Microsoft will shape up and start computing effectively. They have good engineers; they just have sloppy management that cuts too many corners. All the corners they cut in Window NT through XP is coming back to bite them in the ass right now.

HTRegz said:
“I can tell you after only using Vista for a week that I see UI improvements, security improvements and functionality improvements…”

I said that Vista was an improvement on Windows XP. I am not being hyper-critical of Microsoft. They just need to start over like Apple did when they bought NExT in 1997. The trouble is that there is no modern OS like NExTstep out there to be grabbed up.

Perhaps, Microsoft will use its deal with Novell to build a modern OS on top of SUSE Linux. I hope so. But, building again on XP’s crumbling foundations won’t work, because the OS is too old, complex and troublesome.

HTRegz said:
“We’ll see what OS X 10.5 brings…”

Of course. But before last week, Vista was vaporware just like Leopard 10.5 still is for a few months. We do know what 10.5 will be built on: Tiger 10.4. Leopard 10.5 is icing on the cake and 10.4 is very good tasting cake to begin with. Vista is building on old and moldy Windows XP. Why can’t you accept that?

HTRegz said:
“As for Vista on a 2 year old PC… it is definitely doable…”

Not Areo Vista without costly upgrades; not any of the very cheap PC’s, either. It takes a PC close to the $1000 range to get all the Areo Glass effects.

My five year old iMac will run Leopard 10.5 just fine. I just don’t have the processor speed and the graphics hardware acceleration to make animation work well. Animation is going to be really big in 10.5 and later versions. That is part of why I’m getting a new iMac. Normally, I would have bought a new iMac two years ago, except for the move to Intel Mac’s and Leopard 10.5. I wasn’t hurting, so I waited.

I’m not dumping on Vista, HTRegz. I’m just trying see it as it really is. It’s not as though every flaw of Vista’s won’t be revealed in the next few months before Leopard comes out. This is a moment of truth for Microsoft. If they admit their failings and compete like hell, then they will lose less market share than they would if they try to snow us.

I don’t care how much market share Microsoft has. Apple is doing fine and is likely to attain a 10% market share in the US (5% world wide) by 2010.

Microsoft needs to get its act in gear, because there is a paradigm shift coming, driven by technological improvements in hardware. Intel will be producing a “computer on a chip” processor later this year and it will be very cheap in a few years. It will be fit into everything.

Apple will be able to take advantage of that processor. Apple was able to fit Mac OSX, which usually takes several gigabytes on a Mac, into 500 megabytes on the iPhone. I don’t see how Microsoft can do anything like that. WinCE is a joke, so don’t bring that up.

I am not being partisan here, HTRegz. Although I prefer the Mac, I’m not an Apple fan-boy. I am merely being realistic.

Windows 95 came out of the blue for Apple– it changed everything. It moved Microsoft from a 20% market share to 90%. Apple had been complacent and arrogant much in the same way that Microsoft now is.

Apple was caught flat footed by Microsoft’s marketing plan. They couldn’t understand how, what they saw as, an inferior OS could gain supremacy, but it did. The Mac OS was better, but the Mac hardware was too expensive for what most people wanted. Then the PR effects and Microsoft FUD took over. There wasn’t enough market differentiation to warrant Apple’s perceived higher price. It couldn’t compete for the general computer market, so it lost it. The MacOS did fine in Apple’s niche markets, because what Apple delivered there was what was needed.

HTRegz said:
“I approved your comment…I’ll rely on another Mac user who’s been posting here to back me up…
Martin said, “anyone reasonable would not refer to Vista as XP with pretty graphics” ”

There seems to be confusion as to Vista’s origins. Perhaps, that confusion is intentionally induced by Microsoft. Vista is mostly an upgrade to XP with a few parts of Longhorn bolted on, but some people will never be convinced of that. There are sources on the web to confirm that, but I doubt seriously that anything I say will persuade you. Perhaps, some Windows authority can straighten out your thinking.

HTRegz said: “I still don’t know that I consider NeXTStep (and therefore OS X) to be a modern OS…”

Define what you mean by “modern.” I’ve stated my definition. I’ve given metrics to judge what a modern OS is by performance. Mostly it is the “time needed to develop improvements.” And an absence of “antiquated computer architectures.” It is indicated by the flexibility built into an OS which makes it to respond to competitors. I just don’t think Microsoft can respond as fast as they will need to. A paradigm shift is coming to computers soon.

HTRegz said: “I don’t agree that Apple is becoming a major Microsoft competitor.. not yet anyways….. Perhaps when they have closer to a 25% market share I’ll consider them a serious competitor.”

I’m just saying that Microsoft is in jeopardy, but they seem to think that a good PR campaign will make up for its software’s deficiencies. Microsoft’s marketing plan, which gave it supremacy, will not satisfy the next big market push.

Any major change in market share will take place over the next ten years and by the time Microsoft does something about it, it will be too late. Just as it was for Apple in 1996. Neither had or will have the lead time.

Some of this will be from coming from hardware changes that Microsoft will not be able to take advantage of. And Apple will. The next paradigm shift will not be in the Enterprise market, that is mostly saturated, but on the consumer side.

HTRegz said: “I don’t agree that Apple is 5 years ahead of Microsoft in OS Development and your sources on Vista are “disgruntled Microsoft employees”.. Disgruntled being the keyword…”

If you don’t see it, you don’t see it. I can’t make you. Microsoft’s management doesn’t see it, so why should people who think kindly toward Microsoft?

The question is why the employees were disgruntled. They were upset to see four years of their efforts go down the drain because of poor leadership. No doubt, the employees who worked on Pink, Taligent, Copland and Gershwin felt disgruntled, too– with good reason.

Five years is nothing in developing a modern OS. It took Apple from 1997 to 2001 to get Mac OSX to near shipping condition. And NExTstep was the gold standard in a modern OS that everyone was competing against. Windows talked about Cairo in 1991 to compete against it; Apple talked up Taligent and Copland. None of these were much more than vaporware.

HTRegz said: “You also say “WinCE is a joke” without any backing that up… ”

I can direct you to some sources if you are interested. Microsoft has not had much success with WinCE. WinCE isn’t really a shorted version of Vista; it’s too old for that. The OSX that will be used in the iPhone IS a shortened version of Mac OSX 10.5. Appropriate improvements in later Mac operating systems will make it into the iPhone and other appliances that Apple will make. That is what a modern OS can do– go anywhere and do everything.

HTRegz said: “Although I’ll point you towards Windows Mobile…”

I’m not talking about phone software; phone software sucks from the compromises forced on it, years ago, by hardware limitations that no longer apply. Windows mobile can’t compete against Symbian and Symbian is old, old, old.

The issue is much bigger than that. I’m talking about about ubiquitous computing. Computers will be put in almost everything in a few years because the hardware will get so cheap.

HTRegz said: “One last thing, I’d like to point you to John Galt’s post above for reference on running Vista with Aero on an older PC (circa 2002).”

I put some limitations on what I said which you are ignoring. I was talking about Vista with the full Areo Glass effects. That is a proper comparison to Mac OSX 10.3 and later.

Mid range computers newer than two years old will do okay on Areo Vista with more ram and perhaps, an upgraded video card. Cheap PCs are out; they will never run Areo Glass. But the older a PC is, the more likely that it will need massive upgrades. I keep hearing that from authorities like PC World. Are you calling them liars?

Since there is not much new to entice people to upgrade to Vista, many of them will wait until they need to buy a new computer. The IT people are recommending a two year wait before upgrading, because Vista will break much of their software and interrupt their work flows. Vista will not be a repeat of Windows 95. People have learned to make do with Windows XP. So, why change? There isn’t enough advantages in Vista to push them off the dime.

The crux of our disagreement, HTRegz, is that you think Vista is Longhorn with just a name change. And since Longhorn was a modern OS, therefore, Vista is a modern OS. Hence, Mac OSX is not superior to Vista and there is no particular reason to favor Mac OSX over Vista. And to do so, comes down to a prejudice against Microsoft. Does that sound like a fair assessment of your position?

If you strongly believe that position, there is no way that I could persuade you otherwise. The question is how adamant you are about it. Would you listen to Microsoft experts, or Microsoft programmers, who tell you differently? Would you investigate the matter to find out the truth, rather than look to confirm what you already believe? Would you agree to a mental test that would indicate that you are wrong? If Apple continues to upgrade its OS every year and a half to two years, while Microsoft has difficulty producing an upgrade to Vista, would that persuade you? What would it take?

Louis: “Vista is mostly an upgrade to XP with a few parts of Longhorn bolted on, but some people will never be convinced of that.”

Actually Longhorn was going to be built on XP, but with the Longhorn reset they ended up building on Server 2003.

HTRegz: “You’re argument that OS X is a modern OS because it’s based on a 20-year old concept is what I find flawed… If you take every major operating system, the only one that falls into modern by your standards seems to be OS X… that is where my problem lies..”

Everything depends on your definition of modern. OS X uses unix which is 30-40 years old. Both OSes use object oriented programming for their primary APIs, which is a 40 year old concept. Both OSes use GUIs which are around 40 years old. If something works well, then it doesn’t matter how old it is. You pointed out earlier that things like the lack of a taskbar and an applications folder remind you of Windows 3.1. Just because MS changed the way they do things and Apple didn’t doesn’t make Apple’s way dated or wrong.

In all honesty, both OSes are modern OSes. I would argue that OS X is a bit more modern than Windows as it was a fresh start and many old technologies were scrapped or have since been deprecated. It allowed them to remove legacy baggage, something that MS has been reluctant to do.

(Returning after a bit and admittedly skipping just about all the comments except your reply! )

Well, I wasn’t meaning to suggest Apple’s motives *weren’t* about making money. That’s pretty much what businesses do, after all, and anyone who assumes Apple is in business because they just intrinsically love making cool stuff, rather than with the intent of making money, is missing a fundamental point.

Whether or not it makes me a bit of an Apple partisan, though, I take a somewhat dimmer view of Microsoft on that point. Not a “Microsoft is evil die die die” point, but, yeah — I think Apple wants to keep people from using OS X on PCs because it’ll piss off Microsoft. That Apple has self-interest in not pissing off Microsoft may say that Apple isn’t acting out of noble altruism, but as the old cliche goes, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” In one case, Apple wants to keep making money, but in *both* cases, Microsoft wants to keep making money.

There’s obviously nothing wrong with making money, but it’s quite possible that if Apple didn’t have reason to figure Microsoft would go into battle mode, they’d be willing to work with VMWare on making it run OS X legally and easily. (I suspect that’d be easier for them than making an OS X that just installed like Linux — there’s an undeniable advantage from a development standpoint in only having to worry about making OS X compatible with hardware that’s either designed or approved by Apple!)

I think your basic point is true, but I admit, I’m still inclined to give a demerit point to Microsoft in both cases.

(As for some of the other comments, looking back, I think “modern operating system” is something of a red herring anyway. BeOS was probably the most ambitious attempt for an entirely new OS in the last decade, and while I loved many things about it — I was a registered BeOS developer, although I didn’t do much with it in that respect — being “all new” clearly wasn’t that much of advantage. Arguing about whether OS X or Windows is “newer” kind of misses the point that having a long application history is an advantage in both of their cases. Hell, being a Unix variant makes OS X “older” in a certain sense than the previous OS X, and that’s not a bad thing!)

HTRegz said: “I wouldn’t call OS X a fresh start since it’s basis was Nextstep which was 10 years old when they first got it…

However I said the look and feel of OS X was antiquated to me…”

No one cares whether you like how Mac OSX looks. Apple’s customers do. They fought Apple long and hard to get them to return to MacOS 9′s Look and Feel. Mac OSX has been slowly returning to what people loved in MacOS 9.

We all have our personal preferences. There is no accounting for taste. If you don’t like the look, then don’t buy Apple. Who cares? It’s just your opinion.

HTRegz, you also seem to be hung up on the word “modern.” Modern means “up-to-date.” Being “up-to-date” is a moving target. At various times, different OS’s were up-to-date and were surpassed when new OS’s come out.

Open source software can often be “up-to-date” because someone made the effort to bring its code into line with the latest, proven software thinking. Yet there may be a history for that software going back 40 years– like UNIX. The whole point about Linux is that you re-use what is good, stable and mature. You don’t try to re-invent the wheel.

HTRegz said: “As for what it would take to convince me.. if you were continually bringing up disgruntled employees then no… that wouldn’t be sufficient enough for me.. ”

I’m getting to believe that nothing would be sufficient to convince you. If the people who work on Vista call it a “chrome plated turd” then, would you discount their remarks? And why? Because they are disloyal?

HTRegz said: “And while each version of OS X is it’s own operating system (not an update)… the changes are not much different in many cases from the changes presented by Microsoft service packs…”

You are hung up on how Microsoft does things: Apple does things differently. The “point releases,” like from 10.4 to 10.5, are major improvements; they are the equivalent of moving from Windows NT to 2000 or XP. They are not the equivalent of a Microsoft service pack; those are part of the “hundredth point” increases, like moving from 10.4.7 to 10.4.8. Apple issues minor upgrades more frequently than Microsoft, but it doesn’t have a “bug-fix Tuesday” to catch the latest virus and malware, because Apple doesn’t have any virus’ or malware “in the wild.”

You clearly do not know NExT’s story and what it took to get NExTstep to run on Macintosh hardware. NExT started with the latest “Woo Woo” concepts out of the Universities. It didn’t try to hang onto legacy concepts, so it took the best Open Source from BSD Unix and improved it.

In three years, it became the “Gold Standard” for a modern OS. Many software developers, Microsoft and Apple among others, tried to change their OS software to match NExTstep and failed.

NExTstep failed because it had few software Applications, or developers to create it.

Apple bought NExT and tried to get Macintosh users to adopt NExT’s desktop (in Rhapsody) and develop new software using NExT’s Advanced Development System– now called Xcode. The Developers refused and the users didn’t like NExT’s desktop. So, Apple was forced to produce Carbon API’s that slightly changed code that ran on MacOS 9 so it could run concurrently in Mac OSX.

It still took a long time to get Mac OSX to surpass MacOS 9 in user acceptance. But, by 2002 in Mac OSX 10.2, Mac OSX was the Gold Standard of a modern “up-to-date” operating system. It has continually been improved since then.

Leopard 10.5 will be a major upgrade because it has been over two years since the release of 10.4. Software developers asked Apple to slow down on its major increases (every year was too often) so that the developers could spend their time improving their own applications rather than adjusting to Apple’s improvements.

The Macintosh API’s are mature and stable. The OS is quite flexible; it has taken Apple’s move to Intel hardware without many hiccups.

The question is, “Is Mac OSX still modern?” YES.

“Has any OS been released to meet or surpass Mac OSX?” NO.

“Has Vista met or surpassed Mac OSX 10.4?” Absolutely not.

Is Vista modern and “up-to-date?” No. Why? Because it is built on Windows server 2003 and that is updated Windows NT or Windows 2000 server. And no one ever said that they were modern.

Microsoft is moving Vista toward being a modern OS. I have to applaud that, but MS still has some distance to go. Why is it not acceptable to remark on that? Only your prejudice prevents looking at this issue fairly.

Take a look at the following article in the Wall Street Journal.

http://net127.com/2005/09/24/battling-google-microsoft-changes-how-it-builds-software

“Battling Google, Microsoft Changes How It Builds Software
Posted by glenn under Software

ROBERT A. GUTH , Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, reports:

REDMOND, Wash. — Jim Allchin, a senior Microsoft Corp. executive, walked into Bill Gates’s office here one day in July last year to deliver a bombshell about the next generation of Microsoft Windows.

“It’s not going to work,” Mr. Allchin says he told the Microsoft chairman. The new version, code-named Longhorn, was so complex its writers would never be able to make it run properly.

The news got even worse: Longhorn was irredeemable because Microsoft engineers were building it just as they had always built software. Throughout its history, Microsoft had let thousands of programmers each produce their own piece of computer code, then stitched it together into one sprawling program. Now, Mr. Allchin argued, the jig was up. Microsoft needed to start over.

Mr. Gates resisted at first, pushing for Mr. Allchin’s group to take more time until everything worked. Over the next few months, Mr. Allchin and his deputies would also face protests from programmers who complained he was trying to impose bureaucracy and rob Microsoft of its creativity.

“There was some angst by everybody,” says Mr. Gates of the period. “It’s obviously my role to ask people, ‘Hey, let’s not throw things out we shouldn’t throw out. Let’s keep things in that we can keep in.’ ””

That article settles the question of whether or not Vista is Longhorn with a different name. It is not. It is Windows server 2003 plus new software and parts of Longhorn bolted on. “XP with a pretty face” gives too much credit to Windows XP.

HTRegz said: “I also don’t think that development time plays into “building a modern os” but rather the level of oversight and though that went into the project..”

I used that point to show how far Microsoft is behind the eight ball. MS has vastly improved its software development system, but it has a long way to go to bring Vista up to the Gold Standard– whatever the current Mac OSX is. That is especially difficult, because the Gold Standard keeps moving.

Leopard 10.5 will bring out an improved version of its Spotlight that will do exactly what Microsoft wanted “WinFS” to be– a Relational Database file system. WinFS was dropped from Vista; perhaps, we will see it in “Vienna” in two to three years.

I am not being too hard on Microsoft, HTRegz. I am just looking at things fairly– something that you cannot do.

I wish Microsoft well, because I believe in competition. If Vista or Vienna were up-to-date then that would put pressure on Apple to improve. I would like to see Apple and Microsoft neck-to-neck, rather than see Apple lap MS the way they have.

The race will never be over, but I’d like MS to catch up. I fail to see how kidding yourself about the true situation serves anyone.

“That says I can’t install OS X on my PC, so why should we expect Microsoft to allow the opposite… In this case, I’d say that Apple hit first and that Microsoft is only responding in kind…”

Microsoft must be glad that you can’t install Mac OS X on your PC, that’s one less direct competitor for them to care about, it means you’re more likely to keep using a Microsoft OS on the PC.

If you install Windows on your Mac, that’s a good thing for them too. Maybe you purchased the Mac instead of a Dell or a HP, as long as you buy a Vista license, Microsoft couldn’t care less. They’re not in the PC hardware business.

Some people don’t want to dual boot, they would prefer to run Windows and Mac apps side-by-side. They will use a virtualization solution, Parallels or VMware. With dual-booting and virtualization, all the bases are covered, it makes Mac users more likely to pay for Windows. It’s a win for consumers (you can run whatever OS, exactly how you want it), it’s a win for Apple (more hardware sales), and a win for Microsoft (more OS sales).

I think Microsoft’s best interest should be to allow anyone to virtualize “Vista Home” on Parallels. If they don’t, they could lose some sales. To offset the loss they must convince enough people to buy the more expensive “Vista IDon’tRememberWhich Edition”. If this doesn’t work, maybe they will change their mind. The Home/Pro separation is kinda artificial, nowadays things are not so clear-cut anymore.

Oh, and this Artie MacStrawman guy is really a petty Mac zealot, thank you for taking him down a peg! ;-D

Hi As I see it,
I mostly agree what what you said. The last thing that Microsoft wants is direct competition in PC OS’s from Apple and Apple is unlikely to do that.

The real indication of their motivations come from where each gets their money. 80% of Microsoft’s money come from Windows sales to OEM’s while Apple gets their money from Hardware sales. It makes no sense for Microsoft to start making PC’s like Dell or HP, or for Apple to start selling Mac OSX to OEM’s. Dell or HP might like Apple to sell its OS to them, since that unshackles them from Microsoft, but that is very unlikely.

Apple can get away with allowing Windows XP to run in BootCamp or Parallels, because it is a “come on.” Personal preferences aside, next to nobody who seriously tries the Macintosh for three months will go back to Windows. It takes that long to unlearn the “Windows” way of doing things. And as long as Apple stays ahead of Microsoft in OS development, the migration will be from the Windows side to the Mac. Eventually, even Windows zealots like HTRegz will convert. He’s not a dummy, just brainwashed.

“I think Microsoft’s best interest should be to allow anyone to virtualize “Vista Home” on Parallels.”

You would think so, but Microsoft is a monopolist. It doesn’t want you to directly compare its Windows OS to Mac OSX on Apple hardware, because the comparison is unfavorable. That is why it broke so many things in Vista.

Microsoft will also try to avoid Virtualization of its software by charging more for the possibility of doing so. MS has made it difficult to use Windows inside Xen, but IBM and Intel collaborated recently to provide a hardware solution that makes it easier for a Hypervisor to place calls to Windows. That way the Windows OS doesn’t even know that it is sharing a computer with another OS.

“If they don’t, they could lose some sales. To offset the loss they must convince enough people to buy the more expensive “Vista IDon’tRememberWhich Edition”. ”

Microsoft wants people to stick with the “devil they know.” I suspect that they are trying to confuse the issue so that they can milk the most money from their customers. The Longhorn fiasco cost them $7 billion in return for nothing and Microsoft’s customers must be forced to pay for it.

Most people will get Vista when they buy a new computer, because upgrading is too confusing. Even to upgrade a two year old computer to Areo Vista will likely cost $250 plus the cost of the software according to PC World.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128930-pg,1/article.html

That means that upgrading an older computer to Areo Vista will cost $500 to $600, so why not buy a new $1200 to $1500 computer? Microsoft, naturally, wants that computer to be a Dell, HP or Lenovo, not Apple.

Apple is acting like a marauder: it is picking off converts from the periphery of the Microsoft herd. Apple doesn’t want the low end computer or the enterprise market or the high end games yet. What it wants is the most profitable half of the consumer, creative and education markets. It’s hardware is competing well against Sony, IBM, HP and Dell. Value conscious customers are increasingly turning to Apple.

Apple is on a high growth rate in market share (26% annually) while the market is almost flat (5%.) Apple’s Consumer Electronics offering’s are doing quite well (iPod, iTunes Store etc) and Apple will be expanding that segment with a bunch of new offerings (iPhone, Apple TV, etc.)

The projected market share for Apple in 2010 is to double what it currently has (5% of the US market and under 3% of the world market.) Apple will have some difficulty supplying that growth, because it doesn’t want to grow too fast. Fast growth always introduces inefficiencies that come back to bite you. Apple is small enough that doubling its market share is comparatively easy. And doubling its market cap from doubling its sales at its high profit margins, will make it bigger than Microsoft by 2011 or 2012.

Let’s say I write software for Vista. I want my machine to have several versions of Vista on it for testing. I want install Ultimate and run Basic Home (or whatever) under emulation, since I need to support both versions. I don’t think it would make sense to run Ultimate under emulation with the less powerful version as host. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is impossible with the current Vista EULA? Whereas, you could certainly buy two copies of Mac OS X and run one under emulation (in fact, I think you can do it with one license, though I could be wrong). This is an example of how the Apple and Microsoft licenses differ.

Zekel, Apple sells a “Family Pack” of 5 OS licenses for $199– $129 for a single license. If you upgrade one later, Apple won’t care. Apple allows you to move your OS to another machine. So if your computer broke down and you bought a used machine to replace it and you had newer OS in the broken one– then move it. I don’t expect Apple to complain about you running several versions of its OS in Virtual mode– say for testing out programs. And the old versions are cheap.

Apple doesn’t check to see if you are legal, either; Microsoft does. So, Apple’s EULA is cautionary, not punitive.

HTRegz:

(In response to Terry)
- If OS X doesn’t do everything for you… why run it in the first place?? The “cool factor”?

(In response to Martin)
- I’m running on a 1.42Ghz PPC that I bought a year ago… and I don’t even have transparencies and genie effect, etc… I also don’t know that OS X does far more… maybe a few fancy effects by comparison but that’s it…

————————————————————————————-

Mr. Cool Factor,

How can anyone accept anything you say as sincere, let alone factual.

Shane,

I disagree.. There are several people in my office that have both OS X and Windows.. running OS X at home and Windows at work… In your standard Office environment this may be true… However those people that have OS X at home and Windows at work don't get a true comparison… They are generally in locked down, secured AD environments while at work… So they see their limitations (based on permissions) as limitations based on the OS.

You can't blame Microsoft for adding additional functionality to their browsers… The other browsers could support it… I use Firefox and I'm able to use it for any site I go to… Without problem… Blame the developers of the sites that do it… I've seen sites that when accessed in IE display the message "You're using IE, you aren't allowed to view this site" so the pendulum swings both ways. Also with support for XP going until 2014… If you only want Windows for small things like IE and so forth, there's no reason why you couldn't continue to use XP in your virtual machine…
Not anyone who expresses a voice… just those (such as the four sites that I linked to in my initial post) that scream out when they have no technical background, yet because they are Mac users want to be experts on the subject… You'll find that Windows users are generally quite willing to point out the flaws in their operating system… OS X users are the same..

As a side note… someone recently pointed out that you can still install Vista via <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/&quot; rel="nofollow">bootcamp</a> should you desire to have it on your Mac.

First, stop using the epithets "fanboys", "zealots" etc. If you want use these for Mac users and Linux users/supporters then you must use "zombies", "lemmings" etc. for Windows users/supporters.

Second, Apple is neither Microsoft (software) or Dell (hardware). Apple is more like Sun, since it provides a complete computer (hardware &amp; software). The user experience on all Macintosh Computers capable of running OS X (all PowerPC G4s &amp; G5s and Intel Processor based machines) provide identical user experience. Even the much admired/maligned G4 Cube (released in July 2000) runs Mac OSX 10.4.8. with comfortable speed for normal user applications (mail, word processing, internet access, playing music, showing videos etc.). Further, with revision of Mac OS X, these old machines become snappier and snappier. Can you say the same thing about Microsoft Windows running on hardware made by Dell, HP, IBM and others?

Third, the user interaction philosophies behind Apple Macintosh Computers (OS 9 and OS X) and Microsoft Windows-based Personal Computers are quite different. While OS 9 &amp; OS X are document-centric, Windows is application-centric and wastes screen real estate. This minor difference in philosophies, gives a big boost to the everyday Macintosh user productivity.

Four, the Macintosh OS user interface was designed from day one as to be graphics-oriented. Windows OS user interface was built on top of the text-oriented DOS user interface. This difference results in less eye-fatigue when one uses the Macintosh as compared to Windows-based computer.

How do I know all of the above and more, to prefer a Macintosh over a Windows-based computer for my personal use? I have been using both of them daily for more than 15 years. Windows-based computers at work and Macintosh computers at home.

You can not compare a Macintosh Computer with a Windows-based Computer. The former is a horse, while the latter is an ass.

You know, sometimes one is almost forced into being some kind of over-zealous user, having chosen a Mac. When you cannot say anything positive about the Mac without being bashed, ridiculed, called zealots, cult folllowers and what not, when the humblest suggestion that someone could perhaps benefit from trying out a Mac, can result in frenetic attacks which too easily goes directly on one's personality, then it is not easy throwing oneself into the nearest ditch, throwing mental grenades back.

Seems to me that you're one of these people who is brimming with some sort of hatred I simply can't understand. Is it something personal? And it is beyond me how someone can hate using a computer, be it PC with Windows or Linux or Mac. It might annoy or irritate, but hate? Isn't that a tad immature? (Or am I being cocky and typical Mac now?)

How about a dash of sense of humour? You know, attacking The Macalope and Artie Strawman is really a little… well, those sites are clearly in it for the humorous take and Artie is also an irony on Mac zealotry. Well, here's another which might upset a few Mac-zealots (oh yes, they do exists, but are a tiny minority these days):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2005931,00.html

PS: Charlie Brooker is a comedian:)

Stevew,

Apple my very well modify it's EULA… but for that we'll wait and see..

Now on to your applications that require VT:

1. So you want more backwards compatibility… It's funny because this is something that people will regularly attack Microsoft for. (I point you towards this <a href="http://blog.ncircle.com/blogs/vert/archives/2007/02/tabula_rasa.html&quot; rel="nofollow">blog post</a>)… That is a valid reason, but how many people still use 98 that require our documents… I'm guessing that's a rare occasion.. (then again it may not be). However there's no reason why XP can't be used here… you don't *NEED* Vista.

2. There's no reason why this couldn't also be done on XP… This almost sounds a little business like though. (Web Design is considered a type of business)

3. Again XP will do the trick..

4. This is business related

5. This is hobbyist..

Yes you've pointed out 2 (maybe 3) things that are benefits of VT… Examples of why VT makes your life more convenient.. and I'm not arguing.. I love VT… I never said I didn't… None of those scream 'I need Vista running on VT" though… So XP (which you can virtualize) will work just fine for you… It looks to me like you use VT for the convenience… Microsoft is realizing that people use it for convenience and is now trying to cash in and make some extra money… Most people are willing to pay for extra convenience (raised prices at the Convenience store over the Grocery store is a prime example of this) so why shouldn't they take advantage of this.. it's a benefit of Capitalism and the free market.

Again I'm not debating the usefulness or convenience of VT… I'm trying to figure out why Mac users are crying out that this is an attack on them.. and why they are "unwilling" to pay that extra bit for convenience.. My PC has Linux installed on it, everything else (XP for example) exists in VMs, even my OS X has Virtual PC with XP… but I'm not going to complain that Microsoft is being unfair to me by not allowing me to install Vista Home in a VM on my Linux PC… I'm going to accept that I have to pay a little more for the convenience.

And then there's this. http://www.shinyshiny.tv/2007/02/microsofts_new.html

Compare and contrast.

HTRegz, there are some flaws with your post.

Example: You say say that Microsoft's EULA term is just the same as Apple's. Now, Apple has their term in to make sure that they sell enough of their hardware. Where is Microsoft doing that?

You also say that those who need to run Windows on their Macs should have used Windows right away in one of the comments. If you ignore points like better user interface (this is a matter of taste, of course), better applications, security (never mind MoAB, in practical use it is less of a problem on a Mac than on a PC. Get over it) and so on, then you just might be right. I know you might see this as a long-winded way of calling you ignorant.

But finally: Do you have any idea who Artie MacStrawman is? You might want to read the post where he was invented: http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/?p=664

&gt; A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

&gt;&gt;?That says I can’t install OS X on my PC, so why should we expect Microsoft to allow the opposite… In this case, I’d say that Apple hit first and that Microsoft is only responding in kind.

The business models are different. Apple makes computers to run the Apple OS. Microsoft makes an OS to run on other people's computers. Apple makes computers. Why should it matter to Microsoft that you run it under emulation? Microsoft is making people who want to run other OSes in additiona to Windows (in this way) have buy more expensive versions of their software. Because they can, and people who are going to run Windows in emulation will have to buy it. I wouldn't call it a tax, but there is certainly no reason for it. Except for money, of course.

Here's a question for you, Mr. Regz:

When you see Steven Cobert on Comedy Central, do you think he's *really* trying to be Bill O'Reilly? My guess is you probably don't.

“I love Apple, Mac OS X is invulnerable and I’d jump off a cliff if Steve asked me to.” and “The Mac is utterly impregnable to attack. I’ll never switch to Windows or Ubuntu or something.”

The above is actually satire — The name, 'Artie MacStrawman" is a play on a type of argument called a "strawman" argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

So, the object of the satire are the people who really believe that mac users believe that their Apple computers are always and in all cases perfect, invulnerable to security attack, etc. That is the strawman argument made by those who claim that mac users are "smug." Some undoubtably are, but so are some PC users.

Sorry that got a little long and off-topic. It was in response to a bunch of separate things said so far. Here's a few more…

&gt;&gt;Stealth mode” is nothing more than a gimmicky marketing term… Although you’re right it does have a firewall… wait… so does XP

Stealth mode isn't a gimick, but (from what I've googled) it does appear to need some work. As for the XP firewall, is it enabled by default?

&gt;&gt;Requiring Authorization before an app first runs and to install…Haven’t Mac users been Mocking this and didn’t Apple just release a commercial making fun of this?

Programs that need to do stuff in protected areas should (of course) have to authenticate to install. Most can just be dragged into a folder (as you know.) The point of those commercials is that popping up dialogs for everything you do isn't the answer to the security problem. I don't have stuff like that popping up on my Mac. Do you? (Remember Jaguire? Keychain sure used to be a pain in the ass.)

As for those wifi exploits, those guys didn't really show all their cards, so I'm not inclined to trust some of their insinuations. I know you don't like Gruber, he obviously likes Apple, but I think he tries to be fair. His writeup on that topic was extensive.

And don't the knee jerk reactions of all the internet heroes dissaude you from real discussion. No one cares what they say.

I have read through most of the posts here, and had initially developed a running dialog of responses, but then decided that there was too much hype and too much flaming going on for me to adequately respond to many of the posters here.

I will address a couple of points on my own, and move on – and I hope people realize that these are not meant to be flames, but in fact are relevant points that I feel need to be shared.

First off, I am almost 36 years old, been playing with computers since I was 12, and have the most experience with Windows-based PCs, with Linux and MacOS having almost equal time as second place. I know PCs better, and have used them longer, and have made my living supporting them because it is the most prevalent technology out there. That being said:

1) The initial debate started over whether Apple users had any more reason to display public outrage at the M$ EULA regarding the non-virtualization allowances for home editions of Vista. Arguments were made back and forth how Apple, it its own licensing statements, were politically motivated or motivated by some other factor because they are making the hardware as well, and thus want to be able to secure that their OS is run on their hardware, whereas the M$ EULA disallows the use of virtualization software of their Home version of Vista.

How can no one see that the motivation to sell more hardware is still a profit motive, when all is said and done? How can no one see that HT's arguments that M$ is providing alternatives, and that the M$ EULA is still *less* restrictive than the Apple License in the first place?

Also, for those arguing that you will need to run Vista for compatibility issues – let me remind you of one very *pertinent fact – and someone illustrated this very well in an earlier post. Mac users say they need to ensure cross-compatibility in an in-house developed spreadsheet, to ensure it works across all platforms in terms of OffixeX and Office 2003 / 2007. Keep in mind, folks, that Office 97, 2000, XP, 2003 *and* 2007 ***ALL RUN ON XP**** – so can you tell me why you *need* Vista again? For the blokes developing *applications* that need to be tested on various platforms, of for those sharing information in documents, spreadsheets, etc. that might run into problems with Vista's enhanced security, I can understand – however, to say that you only need Vista Home editions to test is utterly flawed in the first place, and sure it makes it easier to be able to drop into an OS without having to reboot, but lets face it – if you feel the need to test out your software / data store / whatever in Vista, you probably want to test in more than just the Home – I can see very few times where you would want to test in Home only and not in Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate. So, the arguments pointing to the M$ EULA and calling it [insert deprecatory remark of choice] are pretty much flawed, pointless, and invalid.

2) RE: the use of a modern OS on semi-antiquated hardware:

http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?s=&amp;showtopic=12974&amp;view=findpost&amp;p=56483

Yes, quite frankly it can. It helps if you know what you are doing when you build a system instead of buying a cheap, slapped together box from a major marketer whose interest is in making the most profit from the bought-in-bulk POS limited upgradeable hardware.

This is still the same rig that I built, on which I installed Win XP SP1, Fedora Core 2, Debian Etch, Gentoo and Jackass! Gentoo, Ubuntu and Xubuntu, and now Vista RC1, RC2 and Ultimate final (3 days ago!). The same rig. The only upgrades, in terms of hardware, are larger drives (started out with 2 15 GB 5400 rpm and immediately went to 7200 RPM drives for performance, and now have 3 drives – a 120, an 80 and a 60 GB drive, all 7200 RPM), the CD ROM became a Memorex 52MAXX CDRW, and the original 100 Mbit NIC is now a NetGear Gigabit NIC (since I have a Gigabit router and am running Gigabit Ethernet on my internal network). Processor is still the same – P4 2.0(A) GHz Northwood CPU with 512KB L2 Cache, 1 GB matched pair of PC2100 RAM and an nVidia GeForce 4 MX 440 based GA (AGP). Amazingly I was able to install *all* of those OS's – but per Apple's license, I cannot install OS X any way, manner or fashion on this machine without violating the Licensing statement.

Does this help the argument just a little bit?

Enough of this.