OSNews

I don't see it as "ripping off," everyone knew these type of display technologies were coming.

Apple just did it earlier than everyone else.

Edited 2006-12-15 12:13

Considering they've been showing this stuff off since PDC03 and probably had it internally under development earlier I don't think it's very fair to say it's copying just because someone was able to push it out of the door faster.

I agree that there really is not such thing as copying in the harmful way, if there is a useful new feature that one OS has it will be adopted by others, i think of it more as evolution.

However one thing to bear in mind, is that a lot of people always say that microsoft had this at PDC 03/04 etc.. However that doesn't mean to say that apple didn't have the idea at the same time or even earlier, but had not been able to implement it in their OS, just like Microsoft.

"Considering they've been showing this stuff off since PDC03"

... and considering they scrapped most of that (Longhorn) and re-grouped to write Vista...

MS seems to announce features as soon as they think of 'em while Apple waits until they've actually implemented them.

(it's not the coders, it's management!!)

IMHO Jb

I agree that there really is not such thing as copying in the harmful way, if there is a useful new feature that one OS has it will be adopted by others, i think of it more as evolution.

However one thing to bear in mind, is that a lot of people always say that microsoft had this at PDC 03/04 etc.. However that doesn't mean to say that apple didn't have the idea at the same time or even earlier, but had not been able to implement it in their OS, just like Microsoft.

"However one thing to bear in mind, is that a lot of people always say that microsoft had this at PDC 03/04 etc.. [....]"

I think the most important part is not if someone was thinking about a feature, pushing it out, or whatever. What really is important is the way it's being implemented. Having a feature pushed out fast but the code is bad is something nobody is waiting for.

When it comes to services etc, I think interoperability is sometihing that's important.

Also is that documentation, specifications is a very important thing.

I don't know about apple but MS has done al lot of things in the past that didn't go too well.

Well, there is a big difference between using the same technologies (which is normal), and totally rip an application until copying the application layout and color ...

Edited 2006-12-15 13:23

These features that people are claiming were copied by Microsoft from OSX - AND Innovated by Apple - have existed for along time before either OS came _bundled_ with them.

* Indexed Search, Gadgets (OSX Widgets), Calendar, and 3D Chess *

It should also be noted that:

1. Indexed Search existed, built into Windows (NT4+) in different forms long before it came to OSX.

2. OSX Widgets require a jarring full screen switch to even see or use while Windows Vista Gadgets are gracefully and simply integrated into the sidebar. They actually function quite differently.

3. When talking about Calendars one should also remember Outlook Calendar. Its fair to assume microsoft noticed the utility and simplicity of the apple implementation - however the concept belongs squarely with Outlook.

4. 3D Chess - you may have a point since Microsoft has much to learn from OS X about gaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony)

indexed search existed in beos

Widgets existed on amiga

Well, there where Widgets/Gadgets on Windows even before Win 2000 and there is nothing implementation specific copyed from OS X, so maybe they stole it from the same stuff that Apple stole it from.

The searchbox... well, i don't know.

The Chess game... ok, that is an definate copy. I mean it is not the first 3D chess game i saw, but that even seemed to have copyed implementation specific stuff.

Maybe you should take a look at the video produced by New York Times columnist David Pogue

That video is hilarious. Seriously. The proof that Microsoft didn't copy Spotlight, or wanted a Spotlight wannabe, is because Spotlight is started in the top-right and Vista's search is started in the bottom-left?

Right. Lots of evidence there.

ROTFL! OS/2 had 3D chess as well...

I saw *no* microsoft hating here, and there is lots to hate.

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

I read a glowing review. It did focus too much on looks like Mac OS X and it does. I fail to see anyone who buys Vista being disappointed with this. Mac OS X after all looks good.

It says very positive things about its looks, security...it doesn't even complain about its price.

The only area I saw that could possibly be a complaint is its high specs requirement "which is true", and without starting another damn discussion on this, will become less of an issue as time goes on.

The thing that was interesting was how *unpolished* he found the whole thing, which is true...and most of these are fairly cosmetic. It makes you wonder, how different these reviews would be. If Microsoft had delayed a couple more months. Although I suspect they had little choice in the matter.

All in all a pretty bland review, and I do think those that aren't capable shouldn't even focus on the security aspects, because thats pretty tricky.

Edited 2006-12-15 13:04

I was talking to the head of the IT department for a client I did some consulting for and he was telling me about their nightmare experience upgrading Windows and their in-house software. Basically, when they upgraded from 9x to 2000, it broke their software. They had to spend a bunch of money to update all the in-house stuff but got blamed by management because management couldn't understand why, if everything was working before, does in now need to be fixed.

When XP came around, they were reassured that their software would remain compatible and that backwards compatibility with Win2k was a major selling point of XP. They bought in and upgraded to XP only to get blindsided by Microsoft with SP2 which broke the in-house software, again.

So they didn't update to SP2 and got infected, costing a big chunk of money to clean up. When the dust was settling and management was asking what can be done to fix this, they were told they have to update to SP2 so more money was spent on updating the in-house software.

He was mimmicing crying as he told me after intial testing, Vista appears to break their software, again.

That's a feature.

It keeps IT goons on their toes.

So they didn't update to SP2 and got infected, costing a big chunk of money to clean up. When the dust was settling and management was asking what can be done to fix this, they were told they have to update to SP2 so more money was spent on updating the in-house software.

Given the large amount of software that does work from Win9x (or even DOS) on through to Vista, I'd start looking at the methods used to develop the in-house software and whether the developer(s) actually followed best practices.

Good security policy would likely have prevented or contained the infection regardless of the SP they were running.

Also, have they never tested prior to migration? Had they done that, they could've determined their compatibility situation before switching everything over.

The thing about this is its really not MS's fault when it comes to compatibility they give developers more than enough information and guidelines when developing their software also MS reps are mor than happy to work out any problems that might come up during the development process the problem is that some developers take short cuts when designing their applications because they work for them. a great example is how many programs were written that take a Administrator to run or install (they didn't follow the guidelines that were in place for years before hand)

It sounds to me like their in house software is pretty shitty which isn't surprising since only an incompetent IT department would "buy in" to anything without extensive testing.

It sounds to me like their in house software is pretty shitty...

When you're building on a moving rug things can get a bit more difficult. Besides, the job of an in-house development team is to get stuff that works first and foremost.

I know of many legitimate applications that use DCOM and COM+ to communicate over a network, that work quite happily, that are now broken in SP2 simply because Microsoft hadn't thought that holes in and exploits over DCOM were important before.

They also didn't plug the hole in the easy way for people either. Oh no. The best way would have been to disallow anonymous access to DCOM and COM+ apps so you would have to explicitly assign users and groups in the installation routine of your app (which the apps I know of already do). Oh no. That would be too easy. You have to either go around all the PCs and explicitly set launch and activate permissions on every one, or you have to implement an Active Directory group policy rule if you want it done the easy way.

The net effect is that if you want this done the easy way, then if you haven't bought into an Active Directory and Windows 2003 infrastructure yet, you'll bloody well have to now. Neat, eh?

...only an incompetent IT department would "buy in" to anything without extensive testing.

He never said they didn't do any testing, which is why he said they hadn't updated to SP2 - presumably as a result of testing. He just said this testing was a right royal pain that costs time and money.

Presumably the clean up operation after the infection cost time and money as well (hey, it's Windows, it can happen) considering that Microsoft will now not patch anything prior to Windows SP2.

And people keep telling me Windows has a lower TCO (whatever TCO happens to mean this week). For some reason, I just can't see it.

Edited 2006-12-15 20:36

When you're building on a moving rug things can get a bit more difficult. Besides, the job of an in-house development team is to get stuff that works first and foremost.

The goal isn't to get "stuff that works first and foremost" at all costs. Assuming that he uses best practices, he can get stuff that works -- and continues to work today and tomorrow. Call me skeptical that he followed best practices, though. My guess is that his developers hacked something together, got it running with a minimal amount of testing, and then [surprise] were shocked when their brittle solution didn't work on a new OS.

When XP came around, they were reassured that their software would remain compatible and that backwards compatibility with Win2k was a major selling point of XP.......He was mimmicing crying as he told me after intial testing, Vista appears to break their software, again.

I agree with you completely. There's a lot of bone-headed things Microsoft have done that break many things, or things they should have logically been done before hand that would have meant that a service pack would break nothing. Microsoft put in an awful lot of effort into backwards compatibility in the past, but I feel that a new wave of thinking (screwing more money out of people rather than attracting them to a new platform by making their stuff actually work) has taken over the company.

However, I can't be hypocritical. Would this whole thing be better in the hands of Apple, who break things royally between minor versions of OS X and who have had umpteen hardware changes?

As for the Linux and open source world, I suspect that things could be better. After all, if there's demand for backwards compatibility then it generally gets done. However, how can you stop things from moving on and successive versions eventually being incompatible?

Maybe this IT manager should find another job. For some unknown reason, thousands upon thousands of applications don't magically break when another OS version comes out. Perhaps he's too dependent on platform-specific features and his application doesn't implement sufficient abstraction to mitigate operating system differences. But, regardless, blaming the OS for a problem that has apparently bitten him more than once is silly. He should look in-house first to find out what his people are doing that caused such recurring incompatibility.

And here I thought it was the removal of all useful features, like line numbering.

The humor evidently went over your head there.

And if you can't find a chimney, how about dropping it down the nearest disused mineshaft?

The big truth is if you bought an apple three years ago, you should be very happy that you have got to enjoy features like improved security, searching, 3d-desktop that Microsoft can only offer next month.

Of those items, Apple only had improved default security 3 years ago. Searching came after Windows Desktop Search, and the 3D desktop won't be here until Leopard.

" those items, Apple only had improved default security 3 years ago. Searching came after Windows Desktop Search, and the 3D desktop won't be here until Leopard."

can you explain "default security" for us all? and how they did that only three years ago? cus.... to the best of my knowledge, OSX has used the unix security model since the begining... and that go back alot long than 3 years ago.

sherlock was built in to os9.... before windows desktop search was in windows i beleive.... and the 3d desktop you are talking about has been hear since at least panther 10.3


care to make any more wack statments?

can you explain "default security" for us all? and how they did that only three years ago? cus.... to the best of my knowledge, OSX has used the unix security model since the begining... and that go back alot long than 3 years ago.

"3 years ago" was in context of the OP's statement:
-----------
The big truth is if you bought an apple three years ago, you should be very happy that you have got to enjoy features like improved security, searching, 3d-desktop that Microsoft can only offer next month.
-----------

Default security should be self-explanatory. Windows NT has had a great security model since the beginning. What was lacking was the default settings for that security. This wasn't a problem for competant IT staff, who were the primary users of Windows NT. It was a problem for home users that didn't understand the possible implications of their actions, especially while running as an Administrator. Vista improves Windows' default security by giving the default user standard user privileges instead of Admin.

sherlock was built in to os9.... before windows desktop search was in windows i beleive.... and the 3d desktop you are talking about has been hear since at least panther 10.3

And as mentioned by others, indexed search has been integrated into Windows since NT 4. Your "3D desktop" is not 3D. Composition is performed on the GPU, rendering is not until Leopard with Quartz 2D Extreme.


care to make any more wack statments?

Care to stop showing your ignorance?

"Of those items, Apple only had improved default security 3 years ago. Searching came after Windows Desktop Search, and the 3D desktop won't be here until Leopard."

Thanks for that on the 3D Desktop scenario. I have a Macbook pro and don't have 3D Desktop with Panther.

For myself, I will probably not get a laptop with Vista or XP next time.

It's getting easier and easier to find alternatives.

What do you expect? Journalists are all English majors. They don't care about silly little things ... like details.

I think he's saying that, since most OEMs will offer Vista exclusively on their machines, then it won't really matter whether you like Vista or not. You'll get it, regardless. Granted, you can always pave it with another OS.

So, if it's good you're not buying it on principle? Because they have the audacity to market it? Um, oooooo-kay. Whatever. How's that PC/XT working for you?