Brands
Events
March 25th, 2010 @ The Royal Garden Hotel, London
The third annual PCR Awards is set to be the social event of the year for anyone involved in the PC retail sector, and a well deserved celebration for the nominees.
DOE
Gatwick
PCR talks to Microsoft's partner group manager, Simon Aldous
UPDATE: Following the publication of this article, Microsoft has released a statement to PCR refuting some of the claims made below. Click here to read it.
This (partner conference in Wembley Stadium) is the biggest Microsoft partner event for five years in the UK – what are the main things you want to achieve with it?
Over the years we’ve not done enough to connect with out partner communities. I think Scott (Dodds, Microsoft’s general manager for small to medium enterprises) used the words cumbersome, large and complex. I’d echo that. We need to be sure that we’re actually addressing the needs of the end user more effectively – we do that through our partner communities.
We’re not a direct sales organisation, everything is through our partners. We need to ensure we’re providing our partners with the tools they need to sell to those end customers. That’s the message we want to get across today – it is really Microsoft coming back to the channel and saying, ‘We recognise that we haven’t been as effective as we need to be in our engagement with you, we recognise there’s been some challenges. This is an excellent time to come and talk to you with the product launches that are coming.’ We’ve never had a sustained period of product launches of this magnitude. If you lookover the next nine months, it’s a significant change in the development of our technology.
How much feedback are you taking from the partners? Could you do with more of it?
The answer is yes, we need more. We’ve made a lot of changes, so after the last 18 months – really since Scott came into the role and looked to redefine his part of the business – we’ve made a number of changes to try and allow us to get closer to our partner communities.
If you look at the SMB market (classified as firms with 0-250 employees), we’ve made some significant changes internally at Microsoft. When I joined three years ago there wasn’t a dedicated sales focus on this area, we didn’t really have an internal infrastructure that was targeted at supporting it.
Now we’ve got something in the region of 30 sales people working regionally within the UK. The regions are important, you can’t treat everyone the same. From an SMB perspective we’ve segmented the country by RDA region. We put people out in the field to try and create communities and a local Microsoft presence.
Was a ‘one size fits all’ policy followed in the past, then?
I wouldn’t say ‘policy’, but our messaging became ‘one size fits all’ for whatever reason. The change in the economy over the last couple of years specifically has forced Microsoft and many other organisations out there to revisit what their value proposition is. The term ‘SMB’ didn’t used to exist at Microsoft formally until about six months ago, so we’ve restructured our routes to market globally.
Have you been forced to do this by the recession?
I think we would have got there anyway, but what has gone on in the world has expedited that change, without a doubt. I think historically we would have gone out with a broader ‘one size fits all’ approach, and now we have a much more partner-focused approach. [A recession] forces the mind. It forces to you think more clearly around what you are trying to achieve and what were the blockers.
When the sun is shining there’s no incentive to change the roof on your house. It’s only when its raining that you realise there’s a problem.
Is Windows 7 really a much more agile operating system, in terms of the specific uses it can be moulded to?
The interesting thing is, it’s basically the next version of Vista. Vista was a totally redesigned operating system from XP. We’ve improved upon Vista in that way. We’ve stripped out a lot of the code, we’ve made a lot of it much more efficient, it sits on a smaller footprint, it operates far more quickly, it’s far more agile and effective in terms of the calls it makes. I saw an article recently that described it as ‘Vista on steroids’, and in some ways you can absolutely relate to that.
One of the things that people say an awful lot about the Apple Mac is that the OS is fantastic, that it’s very graphical and easy to use. What we’ve tried to do with Windows 7 – whether it’s traditional format or in a touch format – is create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics. We’ve significantly improved the graphical user interface, but it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance.
So you’ve taken the style of the Mac platform and built it on the more solid foundations of Vista?
We’ve taken everything that’s good about Vista, along with the core infrastructure of the operating system, and we’ve made it faster and slimmed down the code to make it more effective.
We’ve also tried to listen to what customers want in terms of a much slicker user interface and the ability to engage with it far more intuitively. That’s the product that we’re delivering.
You’re also going to be launching Office 2010 as part of your nine-month product roadmap, would you say that’s been updated in a similar way – streamlined with an improved user interface?
It is the next step in terms of trying to address the consistent feedback, which is all around usability. For us it takes what is a fantastically stable and successful product and addresses the need for that technological evolution realistically.
We’ve significantly beefed up the capabilities of Excel in terms of the amount of data it can handle and the functionality and the reporting pieces, for example. We’ve looked at PowerPoint and what people want to do with that, and how we can make sure manipulating high-resolution video is inherent within the product.
It’s a very exciting time for us in terms of what we can bring for end customers, such as improving business productivity, driving down costs within organisations, with the business productivity concept.
Apart from fessing up that they cut and pasted OSX this question leaves a lot to be desired.
"So you’ve taken the style of the Mac platform and built it on the more solid foundations of Vista?"
How is Vista a more "solid foundation" than Unix?
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft uses Apple and Mac OS X for inspiration, so it comes as no surprise they would admit it. But to say that Windows Vista/7 is more stable than Mac OS X—that's laughable. I never knew Windows is more stable than UNIX. BTW, my current Mac was bought new in Jan 2002, and has run 24/7 since. It crashed once when I installed a Symantec product. I immediately removed it and rebooted; and it's been smooth sailing since but for a hard drive crash, which was no fault of the OS. That seems pretty stable to me.
Mr. Aldous is also a comedian. A bad one, but he's trying!
As if anyone with some gray matter have not come to the conclusion that Microsoft copies just about everything Apple does. The OS to the laughable copy of their new Stores.
Yeah keep drinking the kool aid Fanbois
If I built 2 PCs from the same components, and put osx on one and Vista on the other, then guess which OS would be more stable - yeah thats right Vista!!
Good luck wiht your single hardware config MORANS
hahahahaha
This is a ridiculous assertion that Vista is more stable than OS X. Nothing is more stable than OS X. Vista and Windows Seven are abominations by comparison. Look who has all the virus and malware problems--it's not OS X and that is not due to any supposed 'obscurity' -- any hacker that successfully exploited OS X would be hailed as a super-star, and you KNOW it. This could happen someday, but dream on if you think OS X is 'obscure' Mac notebooks are EVERYWHERE.
Vista and Windows Seven are just lame.
So xXheadshotXx, you're running Mac OS X on an unsupported platform which people commonly call hackintosh and you compare that to the stability of running Vista on a supported platform? Who's the moron here? (yea, it's spelled that way if you want to look it up). Maybe you should brush up on your english and computer knowledge before trying to sound intelligent next time.
We should simply ask Microsoft to produce evidence that Windows 7 has greater stability. They must have it, right? Otherwise, this statement would be actionable and should be reported to the Federal Trade Commission as an unfair trade practice. So, where is the journalist in all of this asking for some back up?
Hey xXheadshotXx, who is this Moran person? Oh, I guess you meant - moron!
"So you’ve taken the style of the Mac platform and built it on the more solid foundations of Vista? "
Boo to the interviewer who basically just agreed with the statement that Vista, the biggest failure MS has ever had, is more stable than OS X. How could you not call him on that?
I think xXheadshotXx been drinking the Kool-Aid himself and has taken a few too many shots to the head. Is it too much for him to grow a brain.
Learn to spell. What a moron.
@xXheadshotXx
"Good luck wiht your single hardware config MORANS"
And Apple's never copied anything from a third party before? I think Nokia might disagree.
You can put lipstick on a pig but it will never be more than cosmetic. Windows will always be second based as long as it is object based. True object oriented desktops are unbeatable.
To me it has always been a huge injustice that Microsoft's Windows got away with copying Mac OS right from the beginning. I know Apple lost that lawsuit. But that Microsoft continues to copy and copy so much of the Mac OS (and more - now they're even copying the Apple stores) does not seem legal. Why should Apple do all of the innovating and just have their ideas stolen? Microsoft should be sued.
Sure Apple takes ideias from other companies... But Microsoft always copies Apple.
Aside from the 'moranic' comment above, I would think that W7, which runs on 99% of hardware setups without any extra effort - including Macs - has a greater degree of stability.
Yes, you could create a Hackintosh, but why do that? You'll get no support from Apple, who are actually trying to disable them by removing support for Intel i7 chips.
If you hate Windows so much, and are prepared to do a little work, why not go to Linux?
Well that's OK then! All companies in all industries across the world copy their competitors. No-one can hold hand on heart and say 'Mac OS is better than Windows' - both represent different things to different people.
I use both daily, and i can tell you my MacBook crashes regularly. I have a Windows Vista Vaio that i can honestly say has crashed once in the year 12 months i've had it. Go figure.
Yeah, right.... more stable- my ass! As many are reporting, Windows 7 is still vulnerable to some 8 our of 10 virus's out there - some stable!
No Apple OS X = no Windows 7; no Apple iPod = no Zune HD; no Apple Store retail = no Microsoft retail store, no Apple APP STORE = no Zune Market place, and on, and on, an on.....
No Microsoft = No Apple
I suppose all you gents have forgotten that it was Bill Gates who saved Apple from the abyss back in '97.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/08/opinion/the-apple-of-microsoft-s-eye.html
The ads all say that Windows 7 is created by the users, from user input. How can this be?
Simon Aldous was engaging in marketing speak, not technical speak. Worse, he was rewriting history when he said "Vista was a totally redesigned operating system from XP. "
Not so fast, Simon. You've completely forgotten about how Longhorn failed after five years of effort and six billion dollars spent. Microsoft was forced to start over with a clean copy of Windows Server 2003, which has all the design flaws of Windows NT. MS built a GUI on top of it.
http://www.rixstep.com/2/20090601,00.shtml
Simon gave no tests to back up his claim that System Seven "is built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance."
http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs/daveyw/2009/01/05/is-windows-7-a-security-timebomb/
Nor was he asked to address a test by Sophos recently where 8 out ten malware attacks ran on his System Seven operating system.
http://rixstep.com/1/1/20091104,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/1/20091104,02.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/1/20091105,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20091020,00.shtml
The very fact that System Seven continues to need Anti-virus software is proof of its lack of stability.
http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs/daveyw/2009/11/03/80-percent-of-viruses-love-windows-7/
But, Microsoft has always put out this kind of FUD while trying to covering up its continuing flaws.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20090708,00.shtml
@S Harmer
I suppose you have forgotten that Bill Gates started Microsoft by developing software for Apple.
So, in this way, No Apple = No Microsoft...
Don't forget also that Microsoft were forced to put money into Apple because of their monopolistic situation.
That they were responsible of Apple's decline is another question...
Someone said "
"Yes, you could create a Hackintosh, but why do that? You'll get no support from Apple, who are actually trying to disable them by removing support for Intel i7 chips."
That would be a big surprise given that Apple just started shipping new 27" iMacs with Core i7 Chips.
Concerning a few comments in this absurd article...
"...but it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance. " Oh, my aching sides...laugh a minute !
and "Vista was a totally redesigned operating system from XP." That is definitely incorrect. It is a modified XP.
For starters, you have to love the "wintard" who can't even spell the word "moron". Yes "headshot", that means you.
To the "Steve" that claims his Macbook crashes regularly. Is anyone here supposed to actually believe that? Especially those of us who actually use one rather than post on line and claim to? If this were a legitimate issue, the problem would be common and legitimate sites would track this sort of instability. That's just not the case and you know it. So does everyone else here. As a multiple platform users, I can say that stability really isn't an issue on either platform these days.
Which brings us to the point where this "Simon" character acknowledges theft from Apple's design (which has been quite obvious for years) but then tries to cover by indicating some sort of superior stability in the core OS. To that, I have to blame the interviewer for not challenging Simon on the source of such a ridiculous comment. That's not the sort of comment that you leave just hanging out there without digging deeper for clarification. While I don't expect better from a Microsoft marketing guy, I do expect higher standards from a would be journalist.
My friend, at the rate Apple was bleeding cash back in those days ($30-50Mln loss per quarter) they would have burned through $150,000,000.00 inside of a year. The biggest impact of the (non-voting!) stock purchase was that this event confuses people like you.
It was Steve Jobs who chose to mend fences with Microsoft because he knew that the Mac would have to get along with the Windows platform (which he knew wasn't going anywhere) and, more important than any bailout, continue to have MS Office for the Mac. This was all good.
But the real change came with a better Board of Directors, a complete revamp of Apple's product line (including the hugely popular iMac), a revamp of their manufacturing process, the acquisition of Steve Jobs' NeXT OS which became Mac OS X (and the huge brain trust that came from NeXT) and effective marketing. and all that was BEFORE the iPod and iPhone... and then, let's not forget the retail stores that came later, too.
"We’ve significantly improved the graphical user interface, but it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance."
Holy crap on a cracker. Vista was a horrific pile of shit and even Microsoft knows it. OS X is built on friggin' UNIX, which has been the poster boy for rock-solid. That doesn't necessarily mean that OS X will be rock-solid, but this PR drone is so off-base that it isn't even funny.
Mactards
posted by xXheadshotXx Today at 3:42 pm5
Yeah keep drinking the kool aid Fanbois
"If I built 2 PCs from the same components, and put osx on one and Vista on the other, then guess which OS would be more stable - yeah thats right Vista!!
Good luck wiht your single hardware config MORANS
hahahahaha"
If you can't spell moron, you probably are one.
Well, lets be honest apple lovers... the only reason that apple is still afloat, is because of microsoft... Do we all remember the large some of money that Microsoft (I.E. Bill Gates) lent Apple to create competition for themselves? Yes... it is true this did happen. This is when APPLE came out with the Mac Ads (backstabbing F****) Also, the reason apple computers don't crash is because apple computers can only do the limited multimedia things they are restricted to... PC's can do much more on multiple levels. Before saying "MAC's dont crash..." give a reason why and tally up the MAC's that actually DO crash. Coming from a college campus? All I hear about is "My mac crashed today, My CD drive broke, MAC's wont connect to the WiFi here..." Good try though guys! I dont prefer MAC's over PC's but I prefer PC fans over MAC fans because MAC fans are like BMW drivers... a bunch of Cocks...
Windows 7 turned out to be a downgrade! Is there person out there who can afford to use their purchased high end software; who upgraded only to find out that not only performance, but incompatibility turned out to be the major issues. My boot time went to 1 minute+ from 22 seconds, my benchmarks dropped 1000 points and my games couldn't even run "I had to most current bios and drivers!". Your idea of being an upgrade was a joke! When you have to search for standard controls now hidden under new/other menus is just stupid. I ended up going back to XP. My Mac and Ubuntu made no such idiotic changes.
Sorry, Windows 7 is as bad as Vista!
@ letitgo:
"...Well, lets be honest apple lovers... the only reason that apple is still afloat, is because of microsoft... Do we all remember the large some of money that Microsoft (I.E. Bill Gates) lent Apple to create competition for themselves? Yes... it is true this did happen. This is when APPLE came out with the Mac Ads (backstabbing F****) Also, the reason apple computers don't crash is because apple computers can only do the limited multimedia things they are restricted to... PC's can do much more on multiple levels..."...
I think you're missing something smart ass.
If Microsoft did not help out Apple, Microsoft itself would start to decline. Without competition, a business will fail. The only reason Apple was close to failing was because of the lack of profits- not the lack of competition- due to inferior marketing, and lackluster CEO's (before Jobs came back). No matter how you look at it, if Apple didn't buy Steve Jobs operating system, and company in general, Apple would be dead. As for NeXT, who knows...
The deal with MS when it came to everything else:
-Steve Jobs wanted to keep MS Office for Mac
-The deal with using IE on Mac computers fell after a 5 year agreement
Therefore, Apple had everyright to "backstab" Microsoft. And the reason Apple went Intel is that the AIM Alliance was going under. **it happens for a reason. Get over it.
I've never had a Mac crash on me, and I've always had problems with Windows (particularly viruses, and overall malware.)
As for the article:
The claim that Vista/7 is more stable than Mac OS X is a crock.
letitgo - Yes.. BMW drivers are a bunch of cocks in your eyes - because they drive a better car than you. Apple computers can only do limited things? Right .... like create the operating system that runs on your MS XBox... (http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2003/10/23/even-microsoft-wants-g5s/) or create microsoft's ads and power their promotional displays... (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ & http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5769/).
Idiot.
Letitgo must be kidding. Sure Microsoft lent Apple money when it was on the ropes, and made a tidy profit on the loan to boot. MS could not afford to let its only competitor to fail, plus, Apple has always been MS's r&d department.
Today Apple is a different company and the Mac has always been THE multimedia computer. The Mac is stable because it is UNIX, and they have some of the best engineers in the world.
Almost all of the things you site (wifi, connecting peripherals, etc.) are easier on a Mac. If your college campus was difficult for Mac users, its because it's IT department used MS network services instead of the industry standards.
I use and support both platforms, and there is no comparison.
You guys fail to see - as a cross platform user, even though I am a Windows XP FAN, the failure of each platform is not because of the OS's as much as it is hardware issues and manufacturer driver problems.
I am a Windows, MAC & Linux User and I get the same crashes with the same devices on different OS's! Think about it!
Some people like apple pie and some like win pie. Which are you and did one bake faster than the other?
Can we look at the facts? Boot time may not be important to some, but I am impatient and need my data NOW. That is why my system cost soooooo much!
Compatibility for my HIGH end $$,$$$+ 3D and video software is a must, and Windows 7 FAILED BIG-TIME. My High end audio hardware was also a failure for Music Production. My MAC still has no problems after a REAL upgrade to Snow Leopard.
XP PRO is still my favorite although MAC is catching up FAST!
Its not surprising that Windows 7 attempted to recreate the "feel" of OSX, but this kinds of stylistic plagiarism has occurred ever since the beginning. When Microsoft stole the icon idea from Apple, Apple sued Microsoft, and then it was revealed that Apple had stolen it from Xerox. It's not necessarily wrong for Microsoft to want to change to update its user interface. But to say that Windows 7 is complete plagiarism of OSX is very wrong. It is better to say that pieces are OSX inspired, but only as much as pieces of OSX are inspired from all of the operating systems before it. Many "features" of an operating system are merely third party additions which later become integrated into the operating system. EX: widgets, yes windows copied them from OSX, but only as much as OSX copied them from linux. I think my central point is that almost everything thats ever worth doing has been done by somebody before. There are plenty of truly original ideas that failed (ever heard of Microsoft Bob?), the real legacy of innovation is how many times it is copied. Eventually someone will perfect it, and then that person will get the credit for using it well.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/apple-versus-microsoft-top-20-stolen-ideas-os-wars-046
Finally with respect to OSX's stability and security vs windows...
ITS ALL ABOUT ROLES
the dominant web browser is always the least secure (firefox is now more vulnerable than IE8), just as the dominant OS is always the least secure. Its all about where the money is. If OSX takes up more market share, it will attract more malicious attacks.
With regards to stability, Apple manages its hardware, therefore it doesn't need to accommodate every hardware manufacture the way the Microsoft is almost required to. This can introduce alot of potential system instability. Linux, OSX and Windows when properly configured are VERY stable systems, the problem is that there are as many bad programmers as there are good programmers so in an open hardware system like windows, some hardware somewhere is bound to go wrong.
to prove my point: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/03/vista-capable-lawsuit-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.ars
Also, I've never had any issues with Vista with respect to crashes or viruses, and I can say the same thing for windows 7. But I can tell you that bad hardware configurations on any operating system WILL cause crashes.
OSX has a nitch market, and as long as it stays closed it will NEVER overtake windows. That being said Apple may not want to overextend itself, there is alot of money in nitch markets, especially luxury one.
Windows 7 is certainly a big improvement for MS, but to call it more stable than Mac OS X is simply incorrect. My new Win 7 Pro installation "blue-screened" after 1 week (and not in a 3rd-party driver either); I have never experienced a crash or lock up under either Leopard or Snow Leopard.
I work 18/6/300 maintaining, repairing and upgrading both Mac OS X and Windows networks. Day in and day out there are ALWAYS more problems with keeping XP and Vista machines running problem free. The OS X users only need to call when a Windows install on an Intel Mac breaks or when something like a laptop optical drive fails, which could happen to nearly anyone anytime. I make five times more money from Windows machines than Macs but prefer the latter for my own computing needs. From what I have seen of the various flavors of 7, nothing is going to be changing in my income breakdown. Vista was a chrome-plated bugfest, Windows 7 is the gold-plated successor version.
I use both platforms, has Simon Aldous? I recently purchased a MacBook Pro after using PCs for the past 13 years. After using Mac OS for a month now, I have to say that it is much faster than Windows Vista and 7. I just get more done in less time and without pain.
I would also like to add that the Mac OS is lame, it's excessively graphical and hard to use.
Let's make this very clear, the $150 mil dollars that M$ used to purchase non-voting shares of stock did not save Apple. Period. It was a move on Apple's part to pull out of a long protracted lawsuit against M$.
"Both Apple and Microsoft executives denied that the Microsoft investment represents a path to converging the companies' operating systems. However, they said they had agreed to work out a settlement to a long-standing dispute over whether Microsoft's Windows operating system infringes on any of Apple's patents."
- http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html
What really saved Apple was the information later in the article, JAVA, and M$ Office.
"More important, Microsoft said it has pledged to offer the Office business productivity software suite for the Macintosh platform for the next five years. Mac Office 98 is expected to debut by the end of the year."
Per the settlement, Apple and M$ agreed to nullify any claims on UI patents (between NT/95 and the current Mac OS). A coup to Apple because M$ had no idea about Mac OS X, the new UI, classic, carbon and cocoa, along with Darwin.
Don't get me wrong, M$ got a lot out of the deal too, mitigation of anti-trust lawsuits, 8 million MS office customers and growing from that date. A means to bring the browser wars to a swift decisive end, IE6 on the mac as default, and a way to undermine JAVA while working on .NET for application services with C#.
Do your research sheeple.
Oh, and someone needs to let this moron go from M$ for his gross and flagrant exaggeration. Unless M$ wants another long and protracted lawsuit from Apple or the FTC on the merits of his claims, then they better find a way to retract such a statement. This is not the Apple of 96'. This Apple now has the teeth and the money to take a bite out of M$.
Will the person who said they are building a "Hackintosh," please leave an email? What do you mean by "Hackintosh." In detail please.
What else is new? Microsoft copies Apple. They don't know how to do anything else.
Can you imagine the amount of corporate email in Simon Aldous's inbox today. Bet he keeps his mouth shut in the future. Hahaha.
Ha ha aha, Microsoft no INNOVATION :-) Apple is the Innovation fpr Microsoft.
iLove Apple :-)
There are many things that you can ding Mac OS for (and I have been using it since inception) but one thing i cannot say is that Mac OS X is unstable. Yes, the Cisco kernel extension is unstable but that is just about the only thing that can cause a Mac OS X crash... rogue kernel extensions. Just say no. My MacBook stays booted for months at a time between sleeping, reconnections, flying across the country, etc. My prior mission with Mac OS X servers... uptime of 99.996% with main, that's 20 minutes of down time a year. I cannot see Vista ... er ah Windows 7 improving over XP that much. But if so, then congratulations... but that would mean that they nearly eliminated malware...
You Vista zealots are whacked! They cut out everything that would have made it interesting (esp the relational db filesystem) and just bolted a resource-hungry GUI onto a core OS with poor driver support because they were in a hurry and pushed on ingnorant consumeres.
Apple is based on a crappy Mach kernel and closes their software so that ignorant consumers have to shell out their cash and not have the freedom to do what they wish wiith the media THEY ARE PAYING FOR!!!! They take something that might be free than tweak it so they can remove their users' freedom.
Claims of stability would require research. It is obviously Aldous is an overtanned Microsoft marketing tool preaching the company line. A vast majority of stability concerns in consumer based systems are the result of driver issues.
MaxOSX stability comes from its control over driver support by only allowing its sexy overpriced hardware. Linux from its need to be a quickly adaptive evolving code base to fit evolving hardware. Windows stability has niether of these; it has to come from its relationships with its vendors. When they pushed vista out prematurely just to make money becuase they saw their monopoly is dropping to 85 rather than 95%, they freaked out and rushed to ship scheisse! They learned from that and it would seem they will be keeping a bit more in touch with other hardware vendors; time will tell...
And time will tell whcih of these big three have the best strategy...but his claims of stability are filled with his ignorance of how the real world works...
It’s amazing to me how dense some people are on this thread. Experience with an Operating System will vary depending on numerous factors. Just because you run into issues or the occasional BSoD, it does not mean the OS itself is bad.
(Insert anecdote about my lack of problems with Windows Vista and Windows 7). (Insert evidence that I have run into issues with Mac OSX instability).
To say that an operating system is inherently unstable simply because it is vulnerable to viruses makes absolutely no sense. That's like purchasing a poorly written software program and then complaining about the OS when the software crashes. In reality it is the software (virus, driver, etc) which causes problems for people, not the OS. But, of course, people are blinded by the standard "Macs don't get viruses" regurgitation. Yes, even Macs are vulnerable to viruses. Do some of you really think that Apple has figured out a way to maintain OSX as a completely impenetrable OS? There are antivirus clients for Macs, as there should be, because a need will become more evident in the near future.
In my opinion Macs are OK for home use, but PCs are much better for business environments.
Saying MS stole the design from apple is garbage, that's like saying Dodge stole the design for the car from ford.. You know.. two bumpers, four wheels and a steering column?
Apple came up with a great UI design.. Microsoft emulated it (did not copy, emulated) .. They could have designed something differant, or stuck with the same shitty old UI but that wouldn't have made much business sense would it? Why not go with a style that is known to work, and people like. esp when someone else has committed the R&D dollars to it already.
This sort of thing happens in every industry, and every product .. cars, keyboard, electric guitars... The only people who seem to get upset about it are apple fanatics when talknig about microsoft..
Look it's a blue button! apple made the button blue first yuo know!
You can patent a business methodology, or a specific mechanical construct.. you cannot patent a vague design concept
Suck it up apple, and let's all just move forward and lose the finger pointing.
mac os is love before marriage. windows os is life after marriage. unix is the love making sessions during both phases.
All you idiots complaining about spelling errors, I think it's a joke you're just too stupid to get.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm
A few thoughts on Operating Systems in general and the discussion so far:
I really enjoy reading flame wars where people bring "Facts".
I mean I guess its true enough about companies trying to squeeze out every nickel and time out of the average user by forcing them to get that cool new idea from them and only them... they do this with trade-secrets.. patents and all sorts of other protective methods. This protectionist ecosystem ensures that the fattest pockets, instead of fittest products, survive...
Wanting to protect your secret code so that no one can see what your doing ( that way you can sell it... more? ) is the first step to producing an insecure product. It gives the allusion of protection because people cant see your code... Security through Obscurity. It also means the core security you do have is only as good as the team you have running it, which is only as diverse as your budget can afford.
NeXT OS was and is a bastardized BSD kernel. Its built atop an OS proven over 30 years... but that doesnt in and of itself make it secure. It does have a sound design and admin system, where most users don't really have the ability to ruin their own computer.. but can become root and do if they really want to. OSX was hands down better then anything Apple had produced before then and still is an incredible OS because its mostly BSD... but it can sure as crap still get owned... and does. ( read some of the CanSec contests ) Lets not even get into Microsoft Windows. its vulnerable to 80% of old malware and is no better no more secure then its predecessors.. it is however a bit peppier then Vista, but only on the way that putting a homely chick next to really ugly chick makes the homely chick look hot... on a relative scale.
Both OS's look pretty.. and neither came up with the ideas independently. Thats how you propel innovation: you take others ideas, refine them and then do something new. Even Newton with his mighty brain admitted that he'd only come up with the stuff he'd come up with because he was building on the stuff everyone else had done before him. All that crap doesn't matter I guess. A good Idea is a good Idea... the end.
The issue is stability and invulnerability. No OS is ever going to be perfect because they are written by people... who aren't perfect either. They can, however, be written under the scrutiny of many many developers with a wide range of professional experience. The U.S Department of Defense recently acknowledged this idea:
http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/dod-open-source-software-more-secure/2009-11-09
This is backed up in spades with products like OpenBSD. Every drop of sourcecode is available. A hacker needs no IDA Pro or GDB to watch the code in execution, they can see what its going to do in plain text before its compiled. When you engineer on OS from the ground up for security, and then have as many 'security focused' nerds poke at it with many'a stick, you get an OS which actually comes through on its promise to be secure.
I has nothing to do with flame wars and My OS is bigger then YOUR OS... and more todo with: 2 remote exploits found in 12 freaking years... OpenBSD has had 2 exploits which could possibly be exploited by a worm or remote hacker. The crap about popularity of the OS == number of attacks/viruses does not even apply. OpenBSD doesn't stand because people are trying to break it. (To find a remote exploit in it is to achieve demi-god status among those who enjoy systemcrackery. ) Instead it stands because its really really hard to break. Instead of nonexecutable stacks OR random stack-gaps OR NX bits, they use them all. They strive for performance, but never at the cost of security, and employ as many tactics as they can to make it a hostile environment for hostile code to try and execute in.
Windows2003 and XPsp2 introduced Canaries on the stack to try and mitigate stack based buffer-overflows ( remember the ILoveYouSan MSBlaster worms...all because code could execute on the stack ). The problem is the rest of the OS is still a steaming pile of vulnerability...and the exception that was thrown ( when the epilog fired due to an x-canary ), that Exception was exploitable... booo. .boooourns....
I'm just saying... polish your OS as much as you like with OpenGL desktops and Vector Icon sets... who cares if its pretty if its full of holes. The only people that loose are us suckers who have to pay for different versions of the same problem. Show my a proprietary program or desktop and I'll show you a free version that runs on a truly 'stable' OS... Start with a secure and stable OS, THEN make it pretty...the end.
wow... I read through all that and its pretty freaking boring.. But I feel better spewing new "Facts" in with the rest.
Computers suck.
Love Jop
ps. My OS can beat up your OS's dad.
AHAHA... Did this guy REALLY say that the Vista graphical core is more stable than Mac OS X's? He IS a Microsoft employee... There's a quote that I love, and I think I'll share with you all.
"You know, I really am impressed with Microsoft. It's have to have your nose in the air yet your head up your ass at the same time."
Not more than two years ago, I used XP, and loved it. I didn't know what a Mac was at the time. A year following, I ran into a MacBook, and hated it. After a week of reading / watching reviews, I began to reconsider. I got my first iMac, and was amazed. It could boot in less than 25 seconds! My XP machine took a minimum of 75. Mac OS X Leopard was the best, and I would never go back to Vista or XP willingly. Just two months ago, I got one of the new MacBook Pros, with Snow Leopard. Not only have I never had a single kernel panic, but I always have to run an XP virtual machine for my work. Even with an XP VM, with a gig and a half of RAM for XP, I've never had any lag with any of my Macs. When I got my first (and last) Vista machine a year and a half ago, I had to reinstall the OS 4 or 5 times in the first 6 months due to x64 Vista's instability. Macintosh for the win! I agree - iLove Apple. :D
I like this
"it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance."
WHAT? so Vista is "far more stable" than a Mac? ROFL it keeps crashing and should be considered pre-alpha IMO! i don't know what the microsoft guy smoked but it must be good stuff...
So, Windows 7 borrows design cues from Mac OS X but clearly not enough (as you will read below). Microsoft didn't have to admit what everyone in the industry knows its been doing for a long time (Windows borrowed heavily from Classic Mac OS and looking to Mac OS X for further inspiration is no surprise).
Simon Aldous makes a big call when he contends that the Windows core is much more stable than the Mac platform. Mac OS X is built on a rock-solid, industrial grade BSD Unix core, called "Darwin". To suggest that Windows is more stable than industrial grade Unix is absolutely laughable. Maybe Mr Aldous is trying to be a comedian, but he is doing an awful job of it.
What's more, Darwin is open source, which means it has a world-wide community developing it around the clock; it can only become more stable as bugs and other security flaws are found and fixed. Apple's speedy response to newly discovered security threats is a testament to this; users don't wait over a year for a bloated Service Pack, they get periodic system and security updates each year, throughout the year.
Why is it that 80 per cent of Viruses that effected previous versions of Windows can infect Windows 7 and exact their payload? This goes a long way to undermining the argument about Windows' stability. So far the few viruses written for Mac OS X cannot get past the Administrator password phase (and users are not so silly as to enter their Admin passwords without scruitiny each and every time the system calls for them).
If only Microsoft would 'borrow' the Mac OS X Darwin core (it is open source, available for any and all developers to download) and use it to build Windows then it could make such a bold claim about Windows' stability and be taken seriously about it.
If you know how to use a computer you will have minimal issues with any OS. If you're an idiot go buy a mac. They're simple enough a 5 yr old can figure one out. Then download AOL for your internet connection and have fun on the internet. I personally have worked with both OSs on a regular basis and dont have a preference. My desktop is a mac and my laptop is win7. Neither has crashed and I am pretty rough with both.
A lot of the people above have brought up the fact that if it were not for MIcrosoft, Apple would not be here today.
This is true but not really anything to do with the discussion, the point is that the comment was definitely not based on anything that Microsoft had found when testing Windows 7, and is really a load of Bullshit.
As mostly anyone with a brain has pointed, OS X is in no way less reliable than Windows 7.
