MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Honestly, I don't tire of the Thurrott stories. Lately, they've been refreshingly honest. It doesn't change my opinion of the guy much, but if even HE can see how bad Wronghorn is turning out, Microsoft is in MAJOR trouble.

I doubt the man will ever stop being a Microsoft Cheering section...but I think he's beginning to realize just who has the upper hand now.

I'm glad MDN's "... recent wall-to-wall Thurrott coverage will be winding down soon"

frist

OSX RULES

What are the reasons for this? M$ has BILLIONS of dollars! Is it the trouble with having to be backwards compatible? No talented, creative people at M$? An unproductive business culture? I'm glad to see the giant stumble, but I'm really a little perplexed... anyone?

Stillborn is clearly M$' Copland. What they need to do is what Apple did. Take Unix, and put their own (and I use that term loosely) GUI and assorted code on top of it. But wait! Perhaps Apple should do the same thing for x86 machines. I'm not saying it should port Tiger to Intel/AMD machines. Puma or Jaguar perhaps. Apple's own Macintoshes, with the tightly integrated hardware and OS, should remain cutting edge. If Apple were to port and older version of OS X, it could steal Stillborn's thunder, yet not cannibalize Mac w/Tiger sales. As many of us know, even Jaguar is way ahead of XP.

Maybe it's more serious than it appears.

Perhaps the developers are going back and rewriting parts of longhorn for security purposes. Perhaps they're busy putting out fires in the current releases. Perhaps they're not really as good as one would hope they would be working for the biggest software company on the planet.

Makes you wonder what the hell is going on if this years release has less than last years. Are they in trouble or are they really trying hard this time to get things right?

This is the same as it always was - they delayed what was Windows 95 for ages, XP was delayed. They have these setbacks all of the time, and somehow their software gets shipped.

The basic issue is that it's a very complex OS release and I sometimes feel that they deliberately make it more complex than it needs to be.

If you know the history of Microsoft, they bought most of what they've been successful with - like DOS. You can't just go out and buy a successful OS. OSes are incredibly hard to write. The other two successful OSes are both Unix-based: Linux and Mac OS X. Microsoft has no answer and they can't come up with a better solution. They're screwed because they are tied to backwards compatibility. If they would just suck it up and ditch the whole Windows OS and start from scratch they'd do better, but they'd lose huge market share. All old and current Windows programs would have to be rewritten. Apple has done it twice, because they could - once with the move to PowerPC RISC and again with Mac OS X. Microsoft is screwed and I'm loving every second of it. They bigger they are, they harder they fall. Timber!!!

Microsoft bought Connectix and still it cannot grasp the concept of virtual machines. Write a new OS based on SCO UNIX (logical since M$ already has invested a big chunk of $$$ in SCO). Graft new interface elements onto it as promised two years ago. Run 32-bit Win, 16-bit Win, and DOS apps in virtual machines to maintain backwards compatibility.

Can we please start calling Longhorn by it's proper name, "Copland"?

The only other thing I can think of is to question who's actually writing the code? I mean, lots of people are managers at Microsoft, so how many actual code cutters/developers/software people are there per manager????

Is this what happens when a company has too many chiefs and not enough Indians???

Michael's suggestion isn't bad either - rewrite and ditch the past. They could also hack at VPC to maintain backwards compatibility.

I think I'm understanding all of you. M$ ought to just make Unix the foundation, and use Connectix' technology for virtual machines running current and past Windows flavors. What really is intriguing, I think, is that Apple has a golden opportunity to target existing Intel/AMD machine owners (read: businesses), and create a "Mac OS X Lite" for them. It's thinking that's similar to the idea behind a Windows version of iTunes. Shoot, at the very least it can't be too hard to simply take Linux and add some Apple touches to it. If Novell and Mandrake can do this, why not Apple? Apple can make a killing licensing to Dell, etc. either a "Lite" version of Mac OS or an Apple-flavored version of Linux. Existing Wintel owners can taste the Apple OS experience with their current hardware. Then when it comes time to get new stuff, they can buy Macs.

The problem is so obvious that no one has nailed it..... Microsoft doesn't know how to develop an Operating System. They can modify stolen ideas and code, but they have no infrastructure to develop a new idea or concept. Think about it....

IE - Netscape light
MS Money - Quicken light
Windows 3 - Mac OS
Windows 95 - Mac OS 7
Windows 98 - Mac OS 8

Now, they have a 90% or so installed base and are trying to bring about a complete build and overhaul of an OS that they never really developed in the first place. They believe they have to be ALL THINGS to ALL PEOPLE.... Apple did it right.... They trashed the Copeland project, bought a decent Unix based OS, and made it MAC LIKE. They kept OS9 for backward compatibility and went about the process of providing updated hardware products that would run the new OS. Mac lovers responded by upgrading their machines and moving to the future.

MS will never be successful on their own because they are beholding to the hardware industry. too bad.....

windows-bashing, mac-bashing, masturbation...what's the difference?

Didn't M$ take Dirty DOS and turn it into MS-DOS? While much of the world waits for Longhorn, Apple should capitalize on M$' misfortunes by doing what they did when they gave up on Copland. Take Unix and add a Mac GUI and other enhancements for backward compatibility. Apple should do this fast before M$ figures out how, and follows this course of action itself. Apple should license this alternative to M$' hardware partners, and offer it to the Wintel masses. That's how to get thousands of irate M$ customers to turn against them, and toward Apple.

"They're screwed because they are tied to backwards compatibility. If they would just suck it up and ditch the whole Windows OS and start from scratch they'd do better, but they'd lose huge market share"


You got that right Michael. Exactly right. M$ is burdened trying to build a better Window so to speak.

All well and good, but Apple is still no threat to Microsoft. Apple won't promote or advertising anything but the iPod, because the halo effect is working on a small scale. And, since that is the only successful Macintosh, OSX advertising that has ever been effective, they are staying the course.

Now is the time to attack with bold, creative, aggressive Mac OSX Ads! If you disagree, then Apple should stop the iPod ads, as well.

I read on MR that Thurrott brought his Power Book to the WinHEC.

Hahaha, the ultimate insult

Repeat after me:
The giant will fall.
The giant will fall.
The giant will fall.

Appel should sell a simple -Panther version- for the x86 PC's...

That actually ain't a bad idea. An x86 version of OS X with stripped-down functionality so people can get a taste of Mac. Maybe soup up Darwin a bit more?

There is a light at the end of Microsoft's tunnel, and it's an on-coming freight train.

Currently, Apple can't capitalise on Microsoft's inertia because it doesn't have the capacity. It can however do one of two things: Simply wait for the software giant to cave in under its own weight and be around as an alternative for people to turn to (which seems to be its policy). Or: use its own successful experience as a model... release OS X Tiger to run on Apple certified Intel/AMD boxes and include a basic 'Windows Classic' mode for users to boot into and run - basically - their Windows versions of Word and Excel. Include an OS X 'skin on the Windows environment. This is what you would call a short-term compromise - but it might be a compromise worth taking for Apple.

I wouldn't write Microsoft off yet, but I can see that in a couple of years they may be down to 70% market share. The whole air of stagnation in Redmond is sending more and more IT people to investigate Linux, which is catching up fast. Some of these people are then making the link between Linux and OSX. I can't see widespread OSX rollouts happening, corporate IT doesn't work like that, but if the small businesses start taking the Apple path, it could rocket Apple back up to around 10% market share.

We do however have to get used to something. If it hasn't done so already, Linux will be the number 2 OS very soon, and will take the lion's share of Microsoft's ex-customers.

Ha ha, I sound like an analyst. Me and Rob Enderle

wow...if I was MS, I'd be doing some heavy-duty misinformation work right about now..

oops.. they've already thought of that..

the only thing Apple can do wrong is feel sorry for MS..

which.. of course, is ludicrous..

Repeat after me:

MS market cap 270 B
MS market cap 270 B
MS market cap 270 B

there should be no sympathy emanating from cupertino

PS. Allchin is still talking about Apple ripping MS off, and MS holding back on features, away from Steve Jobs.. amazing

On "connected homes" front page at the top left is a picture of a Powerbook. That says it all!


joe

now, one thing being said about The Beast of Redmond: they coded themselves into a corner -- simple as that.
they bought connectix (for a nominal undisclosed sum, i believe) in hope of an elegant way to be backwards compatible to prior winblows versions. no, they won't be able to pull it off as nice as Apple did.
the difference? apple emulates the classic environment, virtual pc (on any system) emulates a chipset -- not an actual system! sooo, they would have the chipset, ontop of which they'd have to run the desired windows flavor (the _complete_ system), and _then_ they could run an application.
but there is more. since Apple made sure that everyone understood to code in the given parameters (not forget its OOP structure), the actual jump to OSX with Classic for older code was mostly successful -- not all programs run under Classic in OSX.
microsoft, as every better windows programmer should be able to tell you, did not publish their APIs, completely. nor are the APIs consistent by any stretch of the imagination. add bloat-code to that, unnecessary eye-candy (pick any iteration of Office as example), and you find yourself in quite a pickle, come time to emulate older systems.

damn, i am happy to be a (converted) mac user.

Alternatively, Apple could get Motorola to ramp up G4 chip production again, build some very tasty dual-processor boxes in China/Taiwan (double-height MiniMac?) and ship them with 'wTiger' - OS X with a 'Windows Classic' mode in place of the OS 9 Classic mode.

Think of what happens with Quicktime... each time a user launched their Windows version of Word they would get a start-up screen asking if they wanted to 'Cross-Grade to OS X Word for Peanuts?'

Hey I thought NT was supposed to be the new technology solution and XP was based upon that work. Yet more MS misinformation then if they are still stuck with a bloated unflexible stone age OS that can't easily be upgraded. No surprise there then.

interestingly... Apple's backwards compatibility wasn't hugely important.. it was generally accepted that some things just wouldn't work in OS X.. in fact, to this day, many people do not know that emulation exists in OS X.. they just start DL-ing updated OS X apps.. or buy new versions which are OS X native..

BW compatibility in Windows is incredibly crucial. You have milllions upon millions of people who will not accept that Office 98 doesn't run in LH. That would just be ludicrous.. No one.. sorry mS.. no one wants to pay for Office 12 when they're just using Office for writing essays and the odd PPT...

..

Interesting that this discussion about M$ Goliath falling has led to potential chances for Apple to beat up on M$ while they're down. Perhaps more interestingly, a cNet columnist raises the same idea:

http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6213658-1.html?tag=nl.e501

Anyone know about CodeWeavers' CrossOver office for Linux? Reading the recent posts has suggested to me that if Apple can emulate this (open-source?) technology to create some Windows application compatibility to put on top of an Intel/AMD version of the Mac OS X (Jaguar?), Apple could get its revenge on M$. It could be the late 70's all over again!

BooYah!

>>>>> windows-bashing, mac-bashing, masturbation...what's the difference? <<<<<


I enjoy windows-bashing and masturbation ... that's the difference. Thank you for asking. I feel better, now.

Interesting that this discussion about Goliath falling has led to the exciting possibilities of Apple kicking M$ while it's down. Perhaps coincidentally a cNet columnist
raised this same idea yesterday:

http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6213658-1.html?tag=nl.e501

The recent posts on this thread bring CodeWeavers' CrossOver Office for Linux to mind. Perhaps Apple can engineer some sort of Windows application compatibility, and place it on top of an Intel/AMD version of Mac OS X (Jaguar?). This could be huge for Apple if it can pull this off sometime during the next year and a half. It'll be like the late 70's all over again!

Oh, sorry for the repetition. I thought my first attempt at the post didn't catch. Anyway, I hope someone at Apple is reading all this. Maybe they're already working on the type of solutions discussed here.

If you think Apple does not have *already* all OS X versions running on Intel and AMD based computers you should twice.

It is just a safe business issue. Although PowerPC and IBM collaboration seems to be OK wise companies simply do not put all their eggs in one basket. And Apple is a wise company.

Even if Longhorn craters, I don't see a drastic change in the marketshare (unless somebody pushes hard). Corporate users would probably be happy using XP for the next 10 years as long as it keeps running. And MS keeps patching it.

so when does the negative Thurrot come back?

It's the Titanic vs a medium sized hovercraft. The only turn the Titanic can turn is downwards, while the hover craft can shift and turn at any given moment as the terrain changes. Apple has had a long term plan for at least 4 or 5 years and it is just now coming about and will sustain and has nowhere to go but up. All the myths and misconceptions have been sunk along the way and I believe now that the core framework is finished and matured, that the icing is yet to come. I'm not Steve, but if I was, I would push and push to eat Longhorns lunch and make their somewhat improved GUI and features look sick when next to OS X next release in early December 2006. They should change the name Longhorn to Platypus because it is such a conglomeration of whatever they can piece together. Those late nights in the closet with the Powerbook and Tiger are starting up the realization factor in Paul Thurrott(I now will use his first name). Its effects are already apparent.

Is Offline...

donnie don't say his name 3 times...

http://www.bigfanboy.com/pages/interviews/michaelkeaton/keaton-beetlejuice.jpg

I hate to be the bearer of bad news...but has anyone thought that microsoft 'could' be intentionally sandbagging to get all of the bad news/pr now and in a couple of months BLOW everyone away?

Don't drink too much of the Apple Kool-Aid.

I take mine in small moderate doses.

Just imagine, Microsoft actually realises that they MUST do something big and actually do it !!!

Just beware of too much berating. We could all be using Longhorn in the future !!









Slap me...
Slap me quickly!!

That new G5 just came out. Apple Store UK is showing it anyway.

The correct name for Longhorn is not "Copland," it's "Windows XP Service Pack 3."

Wow. Good stuff here in the comments. Lots of good feedback.

The worse thing would be if Apple didn't take advantage of this. I don't see them being so stupid, especially with Steve Jobs making some pretty strong comments about MS (blatantly copying, etc.)
I have to believe Apple has SOMETHING in the works on this. Is it a port of OS X to the PC environment? I like the idea of having Panther on there, and not Tiger. Are they going to push the Mac platform hard? It seems to me, pushing OS X on the PC platform makes most sense and will get more bang for the buck. Especially if they can make a Classic Windows mode somehow.

It's amazing the parallels with Longhorn and Copland. I wish some computer magazine would chronicle the similarities in the developments of Apple's ill-fated OS and MS's new ill-fated OS. At least Apple (wasn't it Gil Amelio at the time??) realized it was screwed if it didn't do something FAST. Luckily, they seemed to make the right choice by buying NEXT, getting a workable OS (I remember that BeOS needed a lot more work to work on the Mac) and Steve to boot. My guess, Microsoft isn't smart enough to see the lesson there and will continue on their current track. And that may lead to their fall, or at the very least, people will finally start realizing that the emperor has no clothes.

Microsoft's innovators work in the Marketing and Legal departments.

I don't think MS is sandbagging. I think they've bitten off more than they can chew.

The difference between Apple and Microsoft is like the difference between innovation and domination. Can you dig it?

Wow!!!! First “Longthorn” was a train wrack, now it'll collapse under its own weight? MicroS$#t's paycheck to this whore must be really, really late!!!!

MDN - Great take! Very factual - carries a lot of weight.

I personally do not mind the links to Paul Thurrott's ramblings. By using Paul's name in the titles of your articles, you provide us readers a warning to not view the story. If some choose ignore that warning and are upset by the "train wreck" they see, well they made their decision to read the article. You can't say you didn't warn them.

Keep up the great work - and thanks!

B-Sabre,

You're correct. As the transition to XP in the corporate world is only begging to happen now. They are usually 3-5 years behind the general consumer markets for stability purposes.

So for them XP "is" new.

Tyk.. look at the Mac Mini...

They wouldn't release a Mac Mini if they were planning on lisencing or selling the OS for x86.. unfortunately.. 500 bucks isn't too bad.. i guess