I think there is one more thing to keep in mind about the difficulties in upgrading an MS system. Everyone mentions the cost etc etc. I would think that a small business who must use MS Pro due to all of the "advaced" features, will really put off upgrading when they look at a $299 upgrade to a new system. I will state right off, I am not familiar with MS's licensing agreements for larger companies. But when any Mac user can get a professional grade OS for only $129 and have access to not only cool, but extremely useful features, I shake my head an wonder why anyone would pay more for a stripped down version of another OS. I have a copy of XP Home, which lets face it the majority of home users are probably dealing with. Now MS has to support two flavors of its OS and make sure that everything remains compatible. Thus we open the door for more bugs, flaws, security issues etc. I am no expert, but it seems there is a better way to do this than the way MS is approaching it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Copies Longhorn, MS Worried About Future Thefts
- Thread starter munkle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Back to the question of who's copying who; could it possibly be that both companies are reacting to the will of the customers and Apple is simply faster/better at creating solutions? I mean, the whole reason there is a google desktop search is because people were sitting online googling content online and thinking "Why is it I can search trillions of documents on millions of computers all over the world faster than I can search a hundred thousand documents on one computer? I wish I could google my own computer."
Plus, it isn't like search just magically appeared with Mac OS X 10.4. There has always been a search function on Mac OS X. Its just now we have a search function that's robust and more useful. Besides, isn't Spotlight based on MySQLite? Wouldn't that be Apple's inspiration?
Fast User Switching? Again, there has been user switching. Microsoft just happened to be the first one to implement it this time and even if Microsoft never thought of it, Apple would have had it anyways since it was a feature that was requested. Sort of like tabbed browsing. When Safari came out, it didn't have tabbed browsing but Mozilla browsers did. Did Safari copy tabs off Mozilla simply because they had them? No. They implemented tabbed browsing because users flooded Apple with feature requests that asked for tabbed browsing.
Yes, Apple does lift features off of Microsoft and we will probably begin seeing more lifting pretty soon with the influx of Windows users migrating to Macs who will be requesting features they had on Windows. Microsoft will copy many more features off of Apple simply because Apple is quicker and innovating and implementing which means that if Apple and Microsoft started working on the same project on the same day at the same time, Apple, chances are, would be the first to market. Its sort of like racing. They all start at the same place and they end at the same place and everybody cheers for the person they like and you enjoy rubbing it in when your guy wins. Except in racing, when your guy finishes first, you don't say the loser copied him but simply that he lost.
So, in the end, maybe Steve Jobs shouldn't have said "Redmond, start your copiers." Maybe he should have said it how it was and used the slogan, "Once gain we beat you to market, Microsoft, because we're the BMW of computers, a high performance luxury vehicle that is a feat of engineering marvel whereas Windows is a shoddily built and underpowered Hyundai, which may do the same thing as a BMW, but not with the same performance or style." But then again, "Redmond, start your copiers" fits better on a banner.
Plus, it isn't like search just magically appeared with Mac OS X 10.4. There has always been a search function on Mac OS X. Its just now we have a search function that's robust and more useful. Besides, isn't Spotlight based on MySQLite? Wouldn't that be Apple's inspiration?
Jobs: Why can't we use MySQL to database and index our files so we can easily find them?
Engineer: We could.
Jobs: They why aren't we?
Engineer: *Poofs to work on Spotlight.*
Engineer: We could.
Jobs: They why aren't we?
Engineer: *Poofs to work on Spotlight.*
Fast User Switching? Again, there has been user switching. Microsoft just happened to be the first one to implement it this time and even if Microsoft never thought of it, Apple would have had it anyways since it was a feature that was requested. Sort of like tabbed browsing. When Safari came out, it didn't have tabbed browsing but Mozilla browsers did. Did Safari copy tabs off Mozilla simply because they had them? No. They implemented tabbed browsing because users flooded Apple with feature requests that asked for tabbed browsing.
Yes, Apple does lift features off of Microsoft and we will probably begin seeing more lifting pretty soon with the influx of Windows users migrating to Macs who will be requesting features they had on Windows. Microsoft will copy many more features off of Apple simply because Apple is quicker and innovating and implementing which means that if Apple and Microsoft started working on the same project on the same day at the same time, Apple, chances are, would be the first to market. Its sort of like racing. They all start at the same place and they end at the same place and everybody cheers for the person they like and you enjoy rubbing it in when your guy wins. Except in racing, when your guy finishes first, you don't say the loser copied him but simply that he lost.
So, in the end, maybe Steve Jobs shouldn't have said "Redmond, start your copiers." Maybe he should have said it how it was and used the slogan, "Once gain we beat you to market, Microsoft, because we're the BMW of computers, a high performance luxury vehicle that is a feat of engineering marvel whereas Windows is a shoddily built and underpowered Hyundai, which may do the same thing as a BMW, but not with the same performance or style." But then again, "Redmond, start your copiers" fits better on a banner.
calyxman said:
This is true, Microsoft does seem to worry about backward compatibility far more than Apple, and this is a result of being so large and having such a corporate clientele. MS also has to work much harder to maintain this, because there is so much more hardware out there for them to support. Of course, whether MS actually does this satisfactorally is a completely different issue...
This is such a difficult issue to debate that I'm not even sure it makes sense to any more. Apple does have people paying attention, but most of the cracks are related to iTunes (except for that one AppleScript one). If Apple had 90% market share (or even 50%) I'm sure more people would take notice.
But Apple actually does have advantages here: OPEN SOURCE!! Apple has more developers than MS does, because there are tons of developers constantly looking at the source code for Darwin. Furthermore, Darwin is based on tried and tested code that has been scrutinized by legions of developers for years.
Let's face it, some of the MS bugs which have been most exploited are extremely stupid! ActiveX viruses, Outlook Express viruses (OE used to be configured by default to download and run any attachments to a message if you just clicked on it, not even opened it), macro viruses, buffer overruns!
When the MS source code was partially stolen/released a few years ago I downloaded some and took a look at it. The coding style was awful. Most of the comments indicated hacks to fix some esoteric bug. Very little of it was pure, streamlined code.
Like I said above, who knows who's security is actually better? It's not clear cut, but I am very convinced that Apple has at least a significant edge.
savar said:
I agree. Companies will be slow to adopt and they do sink a lot of money into equipment that they expect to be compatible with newer OSes.
I agree also, MS had some major bugs in its code, but they've come a long way in fixing their errors. Heck, today my company's network got attacked by a virus today and I had maybe 20 or 30 e-mails deleted by Nortons Antivirus because they all had virus attachments!
But I think you will see a concerted effort between MS, hardware developers, chipmakers, and the software development community to crack down on this type of stuff and create a tightly interwoven environment. The fact that AMD is investing in technology that's used in virus prevention speaks volumes of what the industries approach is to security, because when a company gets hit by a virus, not only do they lose time but also a LOT of money, which is something that will squash any selling point for these industries. So they're keenly aware of it.
Regarding Apple, I think they got a good handle on the whole security issue, but I trust the adage "where there's a will, there's a way," and if they did have a dominant presense you can be sure to bet that hackers would reallign their crosshairs.
Thankfully, we have companies that help out on the security end from Symantic, McAffee, to Sonicwall, zonealarm and so forth. Norton Anti-Virus saved my computer from total meltdown and I'm thankful for it.
mojohanna said:
We've had five major upgrades in five years for the Mac OS, and while there were major changes, none of them cracked the overall foundation behind OS X--Finder is Finder, we still have the Dock as a main access point for apps, and so forth. Excluding 10.0 because it was the starting point and 10.1, we've had three upgrades costing $129 apiece. So in the past 2-3 years let's say, if you were keeping up to date with the Mac OS, you're total spending is ~$390.
So what does that all mean? Well, quite frankly, it means nothng. There are users today still using Panther, even Jaguar, shall I say maybe Puma, or even OS 9? The same is true in the Windows world. When I worked or a major bank last year, my OS was Win 2000, which was released in '99, so five years after it's release it's still in use. The upgrade cycle actually works more rapidly for the mac community than it does for the Windows community, as you have a smaller user base and a better marketting effort by Apple, whereas in Windows you have everything from the the early adopting plungers to the die hard old schoolers.
But to answer your question why most corporations don't use Mac OS X, I would believe that some do, just not on a very large scale. The key reason is where the developers are: there's more developers working on the Windows platform because they can't go wrong with something as prevalant as Windows is today. I mean think about, you're company writes software for a major bank to manage their accounts, why would you go and invest time and resources writing your application for OS X when all of your clients use Windows and only Windows?
Also, not to spark a Windows versus Mac OS X debate, but depending on the arena, Windows does have the upper edge the business world is one of them. Mac OS X appeals very well with the consumer level user and does real well in integrating the digital lifestyle--the digital hub marketing strategy is a good one indeed. Check out Paul Thurrott's review of Windows and Mac OS X. Yeah it comes from a Windows site, but he does make some valid points about the UI for Windows, and just to give him some credit, he's been an avid mac user since the 80s.
EDIT: I forgot to add a point which is the top reason why most businesses don't use macs: look at the cost of the machines. Even iMacs are high priced when you're comparing them to $400-$500 workstations (mac mini is a different story, but you still don't have a complete system). They'd be crazy to buy Powermacs, and the portables would be horrible. First off, a 12" notebook is not a viable option, and while there is a 14" iBook the screen is nothing more than a blown up 12". So the next option is a 15" and what are you paying? $2000. Most businesses will say "no thanks, we'll just buy some $1200 laptops running Windows and give those to our employees."
panphage said:
Yup! And guess where Be's filesystem architect is working now? Yup, our favourite fruit flavoured company.
The copying that Apple is doing isn't Longhorn (and back on the original topic, I am still unsure how you would copy something that doesn't exist).
Funny stuff MS
It is hilarious about how he says.."back in 2003" and tiger has it now.. and longhorn is still a ways out. Wow, 2 years later.. and nothing on MS part, you SUCK MS!! Anyone else think MS is just a big fat lardo company who is just a bully? OH and MS does inovate and motivate... hackers that is.
It is hilarious about how he says.."back in 2003" and tiger has it now.. and longhorn is still a ways out. Wow, 2 years later.. and nothing on MS part, you SUCK MS!! Anyone else think MS is just a big fat lardo company who is just a bully? OH and MS does inovate and motivate... hackers that is.
When did you last look? Was it at an XP alpha release or something? Because XP's FUS is fine. I don't notice a speed decrease between me being the only user on and me being on as well as my mother. The actual speed of the switch is certainly not an issue - it is very fast. Nothing is "bogged down".dsharits said:
Steve Jobs. He accredited MS for the idea at the Panther release.dsharits said:
dsharits said:
They did exactly that - it is fast. Microsoft's FUS can do it in one click. Windows Key L, click username, done. In 0 clicks would be windows key L, tab to username, press enter - which is my preferred method.
Sorry, but your whole argument that Apple did, in fact, innovate FUS is based on the lie that Microsoft's implementation of FUS is slow and clunky. That just isn't true.
scem0
My Thoughts {{Slightly off topic}}
On the Subject of Spotlight v.s future Longhorn search functions.
Desktop searching has been part of Windows since 95. Granted it wasn't very powerful, but it still was a search function. Linux has had Locate and other Database driven search functions in many distributions for years. I view Spotlight as a more advanced version of Locate, more then I look at it as a copy of a Microsoft search program (past or future).
Microsoft has great enterprise networking features. They support Domains built in forrest with organizational units. Mostly all of this was introduced in Windows 2000 with Active Directory. A great feat, and a great system for managing multiple branch offices and domains.
Was this a Microsoft First ? No, Anyone that has worked in Enterprise networking in the past 10 years will know that Novell was more of a pioneer in this feature set. Novell had NDS (Novell Directory Service) which was built and used in the mid 90's on Novell Netware 4. They had what was called a "Tree" structure that had a primary root with sub Organizational units, network objects, and devices. This was a setup much like the later arriving Windows 2000 Active Directory that many Novell zealots would say is a copy of NDS.
Novell was and is very enterprise oriented, and never cared for the Workgroup level of networking that Microsoft started it's path from. Microsoft "adopted" many of the features that Netware had been using prior, and put the M$ stamp of approval on it.
The biggest thing that hurt the success of Novell, was it's stubborn drive to stay on Non routable IPX / SPX. Microsoft adopting Unix Proven TCP / IP was a great step in making their Network OS shine over Novell. The other major factor in the success of Windows Active Directory, is that it ran on the Familiar Windows Operating system that was easy to use and more "stupid proof" then the more archaic administration tools provided by Novell.
My point
We could list many more examples of software innovations that Microsoft has copied , bought out, purchased clean, and or licensed in their name. They have a notorious history of taking what they want, many times just to the edge of ethical and legal limits. For Microsoft employees or followers to get worked up weather or not Apple has copied a piece of the Microsoft pie, is someone that is defending a company they truly don't understand or know.
I view Apple as a hardware company that makes great innovative software for their systems. Many times they are the first to the table with new features, sometimes they are not.
Sometimes 2nd place isn't the first looser, Look at the Microsoft v.s. Novell directory as an example. Novell was first with Tree style directory structure, Microsoft came later, and made it work better for the Masses, and came out on top.
Will Longhorn be better then OS X? Possibly, and only time will tell. For now I am sticking with the Apple OS X as my primary OS, until I have something else at my fingertips that does better for my needs.
840
On the Subject of Spotlight v.s future Longhorn search functions.
Desktop searching has been part of Windows since 95. Granted it wasn't very powerful, but it still was a search function. Linux has had Locate and other Database driven search functions in many distributions for years. I view Spotlight as a more advanced version of Locate, more then I look at it as a copy of a Microsoft search program (past or future).
feakbeak said:
Microsoft has great enterprise networking features. They support Domains built in forrest with organizational units. Mostly all of this was introduced in Windows 2000 with Active Directory. A great feat, and a great system for managing multiple branch offices and domains.
Was this a Microsoft First ? No, Anyone that has worked in Enterprise networking in the past 10 years will know that Novell was more of a pioneer in this feature set. Novell had NDS (Novell Directory Service) which was built and used in the mid 90's on Novell Netware 4. They had what was called a "Tree" structure that had a primary root with sub Organizational units, network objects, and devices. This was a setup much like the later arriving Windows 2000 Active Directory that many Novell zealots would say is a copy of NDS.
Novell was and is very enterprise oriented, and never cared for the Workgroup level of networking that Microsoft started it's path from. Microsoft "adopted" many of the features that Netware had been using prior, and put the M$ stamp of approval on it.
The biggest thing that hurt the success of Novell, was it's stubborn drive to stay on Non routable IPX / SPX. Microsoft adopting Unix Proven TCP / IP was a great step in making their Network OS shine over Novell. The other major factor in the success of Windows Active Directory, is that it ran on the Familiar Windows Operating system that was easy to use and more "stupid proof" then the more archaic administration tools provided by Novell.
My point
We could list many more examples of software innovations that Microsoft has copied , bought out, purchased clean, and or licensed in their name. They have a notorious history of taking what they want, many times just to the edge of ethical and legal limits. For Microsoft employees or followers to get worked up weather or not Apple has copied a piece of the Microsoft pie, is someone that is defending a company they truly don't understand or know.
I view Apple as a hardware company that makes great innovative software for their systems. Many times they are the first to the table with new features, sometimes they are not.
Sometimes 2nd place isn't the first looser, Look at the Microsoft v.s. Novell directory as an example. Novell was first with Tree style directory structure, Microsoft came later, and made it work better for the Masses, and came out on top.
Will Longhorn be better then OS X? Possibly, and only time will tell. For now I am sticking with the Apple OS X as my primary OS, until I have something else at my fingertips that does better for my needs.
840
feakbeak said:
That's it. Apple makes money on hardware, and they have to support it. Microsoft makes money on software [for businesses] and they support software and earn even more doing so.
I don't think he credited MS for the idea, just that MS got there first... and that Apples solution was way more elegant...scem0 said:
What about password...?scem0 said:
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
-Mitthrawnuruodo
Bingo - and we're back to the crux of this conversation - what is really stealing/copying? I think Steve was unusually frank when he came out and said 'We copied fast user switching from XP" because it already was in use there, and was very useful - not some obscure feature.
It may very well be impossible to determine where the idea originally came from, but I recall FUS being useable on Solaris years and years ago - so even MS didn't think of it - or was even the first to implement. They just made it useful - which is something our friendly neighborhood Apple is typically very good at.
scem0 said:
Then you come back and find it killed your vpn connection, so that long running sql query was terminated
What good is FUS if it kills what you're doing? (Note, I've never tried this vpn + fus on OSX, if it kills it there too I would be just as mad. Hopefully Apple didn't copy that part)
Well put!jayscheuerle said:
I use Win98, 2K and XP daily along with Mac OS 9 and X.3 (Waiting on X.4).
All of the Windows systems suck for stability and consistency. In defense of MSFT, there are many variations of hardware out there. But still, Winders in any form seems like a pieced together system.
Since I have to work in a Winders environment, I sure hope that Longhorn is better. But I am not holding my breath!
Sushi
And still pay for the software that you're using on it, even though you're not using it, because it's shut down, and it's shut down because of the software that's running on it..............and...............it's...........Oh, I don't know. I'm just glad to be a Mac user!5300cs said:
Currently that is one of the problems with the patent office, or darn close to it.5300cs said:That don't mean that people ain't trying to do it, thoughpatrick0brien said:
As for security, m$'s idea idea of securing your pc is to just shut the thing down.
People have patents on business processes, most of which are nothing more than ideas -- like a one click purchase, selling recycleable 1-use plastic cameras, or sending a text e-mail through a cellphone tower.
Somebody may come up with the same idea and write their own software, develop their own hardware, and figure out the best way for them set up their own servers.
But, they may still get nailed with patent infringement anyway by a company that never even wrote a line of code or intended to make a product based on the patent.
If you buy an in-line rollerskate, and think you can make it better -- and do. You can bring out a product quite similar and probably get your own patent without fear of losing a patent battle.
-Sun Baked
All good points, but there's a grand equalizer here that explains why ideas are not patentable, but things like business and manufacturing processes are: The patent office will only grant a patent on something that actually functions as promised in the application. And processes do function - they are processes after all. One may not be able to see it - beyond a written flow or step list - but it does do something.
All good points, but there's a grand equalizer here that explains why ideas are not patentable, but things like business and manufacturing processes are: The patent office will only grant a patent on something that actually functions as promised in the application. And processes do function - they are processes after all. One may not be able to see it - beyond a written flow or step list - but it does do something.
A manufacturing process is a well defined process, so are some of the tricky complex tax shelters, they aren't things that your average third grader can come up with.patrick0brien said:
But some of the crap they've granted patents to are nothing more than ideas, like sending text e-mails through air to device were some such patents.
Blackberry got quite a few of those voided... but it's the time and money it takes to do it is $ millions -- so much so that they finally caved after cutting a vast swath of voided patents through their nemesis' patent porfolio.
Remember, we got PC clones because companies were able to hire people to design h/w and s/w black boxes to imitate a device to get around patents.
These guys ideas and processes are so broad they are patenting the black box without describing what is in it. Almost like patenting a block diagram for a hot water heater -- cold water in, heat applied, hot water out.
feakbeak said:
I didn't mention Apple. I was just saying that Unix could handle multiple users before Windows could.
Edit: Oh, I actually said 'the underlying Unix', so I guess I kinda did mention Apple