Linked by David Adams on Sat 31st Jul 2010 06:05 UTC, submitted by fran
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Microsoft had its annual financial analyst meeting on Thursday, and Steve Ballmer answered questions about what the company's answer to the iPad was going to be, and whether Windows Phone 7 was going to be a part of that product strategy. He said, "We're coming . . . We're coming full guns. The operating system is called Windows." Ballmer and Microsoft so don't get it. I can't believe Steve Ballmer is making me feel sorry for Microsoft.
Thread beginning with comment 434968
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: The touch revolution
by jtfolden on Sun 1st Aug 2010 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The touch revolution"
jtfolden
Member since:
2005-08-12

You have a point, but I think it was pretty clear to users of both OSX 10.0 and iPhoneOS 1.0 that the products were "half baked," that is to say, they were missing key features or functionality, or those features were rough, and we all expected them to be improved in future versions.


I actually had very little exposure to the original iPhone release so can't comment on that.

Certainly OS X 10.0 had issues, I think just about everyone could agree. Of course, Apple was pretty upfront about this in the case of OS X. They didn't even bundle it as the default OS on their systems until a later version was released. However, I think it was important to have that release out at the time.

Although, from 10.1 onwards it did what I needed it to do. It's improved since then, but this is the natural course of software development (except when it's done wrong, obviously (see Vista).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: The touch revolution
by Tony Swash on Sun 1st Aug 2010 01:44 in reply to "RE[4]: The touch revolution"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"You have a point, but I think it was pretty clear to users of both OSX 10.0 and iPhoneOS 1.0 that the products were "half baked," that is to say, they were missing key features or functionality, or those features were rough, and we all expected them to be improved in future versions.


I actually had very little exposure to the original iPhone release so can't comment on that.

Certainly OS X 10.0 had issues, I think just about everyone could agree. Of course, Apple was pretty upfront about this in the case of OS X. They didn't even bundle it as the default OS on their systems until a later version was released. However, I think it was important to have that release out at the time.

Although, from 10.1 onwards it did what I needed it to do. It's improved since then, but this is the natural course of software development (except when it's done wrong, obviously (see Vista).
"

What is often missed in discussing MacOSX is that it was built on the foundation of the Next operating system - a system which had been developed over a decade and which many considered to be the most advanced OS around at the time, Next OS always had a tiny user base but in some ways that was an advantage when it came to developing a new OS - no legacy. So when MacOSX was put together it was built on top of a tremendously mature and sophisticated foundation. And this meant that it could be improved by iteration in each release and that those improvements could come at a fairly quick pace (by OS development standards).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: The touch revolution
by jtfolden on Sun 1st Aug 2010 02:52 in reply to "RE[5]: The touch revolution"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

...and that's actually something I didn't miss at all as it was the very reason I installed OS X back in Spring of 2001. I'd been waiting quite a while for NeXT's "jump" to mainstream usage. ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 1