Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Oct 2007 20:27 UTC
Mac OS X "While the Apple hype machine and its fanatical followers would have you believe that Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard' is a major upgrade to the company's venerable operating system, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, Leopard is yet another evolutionary upgrade in a long line of evolutionary OS X upgrades, all of which date back to the original OS X release in 2001. But let me get one huge misunderstanding out of the way immediately: That's not a dig at Leopard at all. Indeed, if anything, Apple is in an enviable position: OS X is so solid, so secure, and so functionally excellent that it must be getting difficult figuring out how to massage another USD 129 out even the most ardent fans. Folks, Leopard is good stuff. But then that's been true of Mac OS X for quite a while now." Additionally, Apple acknowledges installation problems caused by Unsanity's APE, while others are complaining about problems with Java, or visual oddities. Additionally, there are hacks that restore the black dock triangles, opacify the menubar, and to enable Time Machine on Airport disks. Update: It appears the Leopard firewall has a dent in its armour.
Thread beginning with comment 281741
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Java
by kaiwai on Tue 30th Oct 2007 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Java"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

As far as I can tell, Sun's concern was that the MS JVM had some extensions that made it easy to call down to the underlying platform. This is basically the idea that became P/Invoke in .NET. Long story short, Microsoft doesn't ship a JVM because the company seems to have made a legal agreement not to.


Incorrect. Microsoft said that they either 'use their own' or not ship one at all. Sun wanted to work with Microsoft and get the Sun JVM included with Windows - Microsoft refused to play ball.

In the end, it doesn't matter, Sun has a relationship with all the major OEM's, and Java is shipped by the OEM vendor rather than Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Java
by andrewg on Tue 30th Oct 2007 15:12 in reply to "RE[5]: Java"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Incorrect. Microsoft said that they either 'use their own' or not ship one at all.

Incorrect. That happened afterwards. They extended Java first by providing hooks into OS specific stuff. McNealy referred to what they did as adding poison to Java. So they lost their license and ended up developing .Net instead.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Java
by kaiwai on Wed 31st Oct 2007 01:18 in reply to "RE[6]: Java"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Incorrect. That happened afterwards. They extended Java first by providing hooks into OS specific stuff. McNealy referred to what they did as adding poison to Java. So they lost their license and ended up developing .Net instead.


Please, read what I posted. Microsoft lost their licence but Sun offered them the ability to ship Sun's own JVM with Windows. Microsoft could have partnered up with Sun, shipped SUN's own JVM with Windows, and all would be well. It was Microsofts arrogance which stopped them.

Oh, and it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft shipped non-Microsoft software in their operating system. Their defragmenter for example is licenced from Excutive Software. Their old hyperterminal in previous versions was licenced.

There is a precedent, again I stress, Microsoft were too arrogant to accent Sun's very respectful offer. Microsoft on the other hand was simply looking for yet another excuse to butcher a standard and make it their own.

Reply Parent Score: 2