Microsoft's Tablet Self-Deception
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.
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 73 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/i87
Thread beginning with comment 434978
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 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The touch revolution"
jtfolden
Member since:
2005-08-12

I'm not, those were my complaints when they were released. I was looking to buy a mp3 player. Ipod was mac only, so I could not consider buying it.


That's not an example of something being half-baked, though. Apple wasn't in the habit, at that point, of making hardware or software for Windows users. Just because something doesn't fit your personal needs, that doesn't mean it doesn't work as intended.

ITunes was also mac only, and was not as good as music match (IMHO). I was at the time screaming for a legal way to buy digital audio on the net. I did forsee the future of the integration and decried its non-existence. Early versions of Music Match were loosely integrated with mp3.com's free music content.


Yeah, I remember MM. Hated it. lol Though, I seem to recall early iPods working with MM on Windows.

Os X just sucked. True story: Microsoft audited the api for osx and reported back to Apple that they would be unable to write an office version for it, without substantial improvements. Yes, MS was critical to OSX's succes.


I'm not aware of the story, though Office X was released fairly soon after OS X was released, around 6 months, IIRC.

10.0 was as user friendly as the Linux Desktops of the day, while considerably less stable. ( It did rapidly improve at an astonishing rate, but the point stil stands)


Probably some truth on the latter statement, although the first one sounds like hyperbole to me. The UI and ease of use of OS X 10.0 was perfectly sound, if cosmetically questionable.

Edited 2010-08-01 03:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: The touch revolution
by sorpigal on Mon 2nd Aug 2010 18:11 in reply to "RE[4]: The touch revolution"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

"10.0 was as user friendly as the Linux Desktops of the day, while considerably less stable. ( It did rapidly improve at an astonishing rate, but the point stil stands)


Probably some truth on the latter statement, although the first one sounds like hyperbole to me. The UI and ease of use of OS X 10.0 was perfectly sound, if cosmetically questionable. " [/q]
I'm going to back you up here as a long-time Linux user and an old macintosh hand (beginning circa 1989). OS X was always better than Linux distros in a simplistic point-and-clicky way. This says nothing about the sophistication (or lack thereof) of their system, or its stability (I wont even mention the horrific speed!) but purely speaks to the virtue of having the look and feel of all applications and UI elements under the control of one person with one vision. This is something Linux-land lacks and will probably always lack, so even when you get quite close to usable (e.g. good enough for pretty much everyone, certainly on par with Windows) you won't get to the level OS X had at the start.

In fact OS X's early releases were better than some of the more recent ones due precisely to the simplicity (read: lack of third party software) and the fact that they had not yet begun monkeying with different themes.

Reply Parent Score: 2