Keeping up with OS X
I do understand your concern, but first, let's take a good look at what MS has done both historically and strategically.
In 1983, MS offered to help IBM develop their own rival OS to Windows called OS/2, and IBM foolishly agreed to it. MS made certain that Lotus 1-2-3 ran much slower than Excel, and that OS/2 ran slower than Windows, forcing applications to interact with redundant layers of OS code, thus making Windows a more attractive OS while offering a seemingly more agile spreadsheet program within a complete office suite. Lotus was further sabotaged when Mitch Kapor was slow to allow Lotus to run on Windows.
MS formed agreements with all PC companies which guaranteed that Windows be the only OS to run on their computers. OS/2, crippled, was eventually strong-armed out of the PC marketplace. So, it's not that Excel was more refined, it's that Lotus 1-2-3 was slowly asphyxiated and indirectly pushed out of the market.
The same can be said for the success of Windows, QDOS, (Quick and Dirty Operating System) assembled AFTER IBM agreed to license an OS Bill Gates hadn't even possessed yet........Lots and lots and lots and lots of redundant code layered upon code with each iteration, this mountain of spaghetti called Windows 95 became a cheap and attractive (rip-off of Mac OS GUI) alternative for those using OS/2. As Windows became the imposed standard OS for PCs, consumers and businesses grew accustomed to the incessant blue screens of death and system freezes, and accepted this as an essential ritual to computing.
MS also strong-armed Netscape out of the picture by integrating it's own Explorer into Windows, forcing consumers to use it as their sole web browser. By doing so, however, MS invariably made Windows vulnerable to viruses and malware through the open portals needed for the browser and OS to operate in tandem.
Now, along oozes Vista, with no less than 50 million lines of code, more than 40% larger than the already bloated XP. Compare this to Leopard's less than 15 million lines of code. While Leopard is built upon a rock solid and proven foundation, UNIX, Vista is yet another heaping mound of spaghetti thrown on-top of an already towering mountain of stringy pasta. Highly inefficient and over-bloated, it does a very effective job at interrupting workflow in a continuous fashion, asking security questions every step of the way, such as "Are you sure you want to allow this action?" Do you give permission to move this file?" Are you absolutely certain about this?" "Are you aware.........??????
Will Vista succeed as an OS? Absolutely, as long as it is forced upon consumers who purchase new PCs. Will it succeed by its own virtues?
Not at all.... It will be considered "good enough" by consumers and businesses to get the job done, and nothing more.
All in all, MS has never been an innovative company, nor will it ever be. With all of it's revenue, innovation cannot be purchased. Historically, MS looks for something which seems to be successful, like the iPod, throws together a replica, without the refinement, and expects it to dominate the market.
As far as catching up to Leopard goes, Leopard will be quite a tough act to follow - remember that Longhorn, the original OS project for MS, was completely scrapped after six years of compiling. Vista, with all of its code and complication, is truly a salvage job, and is headed deeper and deeper into Bloatville. The distinctions between Vista and Leopard shall be quite MASSIVE, at the very least...
I do understand your concern, but first, let's take a good look at what MS has done both historically and strategically.
In 1983, MS offered to help IBM develop their own rival OS to Windows called OS/2, and IBM foolishly agreed to it. MS made certain that Lotus 1-2-3 ran much slower than Excel, and that OS/2 ran slower than Windows, forcing applications to interact with redundant layers of OS code, thus making Windows a more attractive OS while offering a seemingly more agile spreadsheet program within a complete office suite. Lotus was further sabotaged when Mitch Kapor was slow to allow Lotus to run on Windows.
MS formed agreements with all PC companies which guaranteed that Windows be the only OS to run on their computers. OS/2, crippled, was eventually strong-armed out of the PC marketplace. So, it's not that Excel was more refined, it's that Lotus 1-2-3 was slowly asphyxiated and indirectly pushed out of the market.
The same can be said for the success of Windows, QDOS, (Quick and Dirty Operating System) assembled AFTER IBM agreed to license an OS Bill Gates hadn't even possessed yet........Lots and lots and lots and lots of redundant code layered upon code with each iteration, this mountain of spaghetti called Windows 95 became a cheap and attractive (rip-off of Mac OS GUI) alternative for those using OS/2. As Windows became the imposed standard OS for PCs, consumers and businesses grew accustomed to the incessant blue screens of death and system freezes, and accepted this as an essential ritual to computing.
MS also strong-armed Netscape out of the picture by integrating it's own Explorer into Windows, forcing consumers to use it as their sole web browser. By doing so, however, MS invariably made Windows vulnerable to viruses and malware through the open portals needed for the browser and OS to operate in tandem.
Now, along oozes Vista, with no less than 50 million lines of code, more than 40% larger than the already bloated XP. Compare this to Leopard's less than 15 million lines of code. While Leopard is built upon a rock solid and proven foundation, UNIX, Vista is yet another heaping mound of spaghetti thrown on-top of an already towering mountain of stringy pasta. Highly inefficient and over-bloated, it does a very effective job at interrupting workflow in a continuous fashion, asking security questions every step of the way, such as "Are you sure you want to allow this action?" Do you give permission to move this file?" Are you absolutely certain about this?" "Are you aware.........??????
Will Vista succeed as an OS? Absolutely, as long as it is forced upon consumers who purchase new PCs. Will it succeed by its own virtues?
Not at all.... It will be considered "good enough" by consumers and businesses to get the job done, and nothing more.
All in all, MS has never been an innovative company, nor will it ever be. With all of it's revenue, innovation cannot be purchased. Historically, MS looks for something which seems to be successful, like the iPod, throws together a replica, without the refinement, and expects it to dominate the market.
As far as catching up to Leopard goes, Leopard will be quite a tough act to follow - remember that Longhorn, the original OS project for MS, was completely scrapped after six years of compiling. Vista, with all of its code and complication, is truly a salvage job, and is headed deeper and deeper into Bloatville. The distinctions between Vista and Leopard shall be quite MASSIVE, at the very least...
