Apple started at least one OS10 project and abandoned development. The OSX we know today was taken from NeXT. So there was at least one failed project and a new OS10 project restarted - much like Vista.
You could hardly call neXT a failure, It definitely had itself a niche. Apple bought NeXT, because it was actually a really great OS based on yet another great OS.
Microsoft are far too ambitious in their targets which is why Vista failed, initially and had to be restarted from the Windows 2003 code base. Apple create software but their software is a lot of simpler than microsoft, but its just good enough for the average Apple consumer. Apple get a lot of their code for 'free' ( i.e., provided by opensource ). Overall, Microsoft create far more complex software than Apple do.
You say that like it's a good thing. complex software is often BAD. You criticize Apple for using existing saftware as a basis for their work, yet MS is far worse when it comes to doing this. XP is based heavily on NT technology, Windows Server 2003 is also based in large part on that base, and thus Vista...
For example:
* SQL Server ( enterprise ) - far more complex than Apple's desktop database ( sorry I forget the name )
* .Net and Visual Studio - far exceeds the complexity of (Editor) XCode / Objective C - the COM+ / .Net frameworks. Generally you would chose Java or .net for your enterprise solution, not ObjectiveC - it just doesn't have the flexibility and requirements.
You're comparing apples to oranges here. XCode is free software, and .NET, last time I checked, is not exactly cheap ($400-$1000). I don't think SQL Server is either (looks like its $10k+). Why not compare that to Oracle or something? Apple is clearly not competing in these markets, so it's really pointless to compare their free/bundled products with MS's expensive enterprise solutions.
* OSX v Windows. Apple inherit a lot of the code base from BSD and put an interface on top ( its a bit more than that - but microsoft create from ground up ( initially) whilst Apple inherit a very good code base - foundation on which to develop from ). Microsoft's approach may not be the best, however. Unix is tried and tested, and very good.
Microsoft based Windows on DOS, and they have buried themselves in legacy code ever since. Please explain to me how that it design from the ground up. Apple may use Darwin, but OS X is a very significant amount of work, much more extensive than even X11 and KDE/GNOME, which are pretty huge software projects.
* Office v iWork. Office is far more complex and offers vastly more functionality than iWork which comprises of only word processor plus presentation. MS Office is far suited towards business needs than iWork, which is limited in comparison. iWork is for the consumer.
The difference, again, is reflected in the cost of the products. iWork is actually pretty sharp software where MS Office 2007 can just be baffling.
I'm naming just three examples, there are plenty of others. Microsoft is in the software game, Apple primarily aren't - some software, but majority hardware based.
Yeah, there are plenty of others. Final Cut Pro is not nearly as complex as MS's Movie Maker, nor is Apple's Logic (granted they bought this one), or even garageBand, nearly as complex as MS's WAV editor.
Seriously, when you look at the iLife suite, not to even mention Aperture, Logic, all the flavors of Final Cut, it becomes clear that claiming that Apple develops "simpler" stuff than MS is a completely uninformed statement. Apple develops towards a different consumer base, in general, and they are very successful in that market, just as MS has no doubt met with considerable success with Visual Studio, etc.
The OS example is the only comparable one, and there is no question that Apple has a superior product by most measures (other than things like market share, etc. that have nothing to do with product quality).
