I agree, my iMac G4 came with 10.0 installed. It was terrible. 10.3 was a really nice OS and 10.4 and 10.5 have basically worked off that while adding a few new features which make it new
I dont think I've ever laughed so much at a post before
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Next Version of Windows to Incorporate Advanced Touch Features
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree, my iMac G4 came with 10.0 installed. It was terrible. 10.3 was a really nice OS and 10.4 and 10.5 have basically worked off that while adding a few new features which make it new
I dont think I've ever laughed so much at a post before
Hmmm, where are all the Windoze apologists on this thread to rebuff this one? [crickets] No? I thought not.
In the nearly 100 years leading up to Longho..er, Vista, M$ pumped out far more hype than Apple did on blogs and the M$ fanboys ate it up. We in the IT sector were hearing Vista would cure cancer, save unwanted puppies and kittens, and keep tomato sauces from staining white fabric. It was going to revolutionize computing as we know it, so sayeth M$ and Monkey Boy. And what did we get? A DRM crippleware bloated piece of junk with more pricing levels than new house that was, despite what I think I'm reading by the fanboys here, to most people shackled by a PC running it, totally and unequivocally "meh."
Yeah yeah, LOL, the Windoze fanboys "Vista outsold XP..." um, no, get your facts straight, Vista has had more units in the retail channel, including OEM units and installed units on computer which M$ used those figured to cover what in most circles is pretty much a failure to adopt. And many that have did something poor Windoze users never wound up doing with XP... DOWNGRADING to the previous OS.
So fact one: Vista did not, nor has not, outsold XP.
Fact two: M$ spins more FUD, fanboys buy it and rush to M$'s defense, the rest of the world doesn't
Surface is not meant for consumers to begin with. It might have shipped in volume and we wouldn't even know it.
Um, I actually listed few.
Unless it's Microsoft, right?
I already listed features that were mentioned as part of Leopard feature-set, yet were not present in the final shipping product.
As much as I don't-think-Vista-is-that-bad, I really doubt it's outselling XP in any important way. Bullying OEMs into including it doesn't count, especially given how many customers send it straight back to be downgraded (which costs time and therefore costs MS money), but you can bet that's what they're using for any sales figures.
The "defending" we are talking about is just shooting down absurd BS that is being repeated as fact in this thread. There are plenty of negative stuff to say about Microsoft, we don't have to invent new BS for that.
Should I just sit silently when someone says utter BS about Windows? Apparently I do, since if I tried to correct that BS, it just means that I'm a "Windows-fanboy" or some other crap like that. Why do we have to resort to hyperbole and lies in order to justify our OS X-use? If I disagree with some of the most absurd rhetoric said about Windows, it just means I'm a Windows-fanboy? Is that how it works?
"First one being: It's wrong for Microsoft to increase hardware-requirements for their OS, but it's NOT wrong for Apple to do the exact same thing".
But in case of Microsoft, that's bad. In case of Apple, it's 100% acceptable.
So?
So, it's bad when MS increases hardware-requirements, but it's good when Apple does the exact same thing? Gotcha. Hell, according to you, Apple doesn't even have any technical reason for upping those requirement, they are just doing it because they want more of your money! And you are defending them for that!
No double-standards here! No sirree!
And if MS announced tomorrow that Windows 7 will not support Pentium 3, you would be up in arms about it.
And Microsoft does the same, you bitch and moan.
Since you are arguing against comments I haven't made I think it's useless to continue this.
Touch
As if Apple is going to sit on their asses for the next 5+ years. I do look forward to Windows 7, Windows Tablet+cart on wheels......
As if Apple is going to sit on their asses for the next 5+ years. I do look forward to Windows 7, Windows Tablet+cart on wheels......
Since you are arguing against comments I haven't made I think it's useless to continue this.
Um, it was you who started defending Apple's right to increase hardware-specs of their OS, did you not?
It's not how early they begin to talk about the next version, but how soon they start to talk about that next version almost immediately after releasing a major new version.
I doubt you will hear anything about the next version of OS X for at least a year.
You cannot assume the positive just because it hasn't been shown NOT to be true - that's a logical fallacy. In any case, the point is that whoever the original poster of that comment was that I'm trying to clarify is this: iPhone is in the hands of its intended users, and Surface is not. That's it...I'm not trying to make some bigger point about the subject.
I'm sorry for not reading, in detail, the entire 6-page thread. I did go through and read most of it, and Stacks was the one complaint I noticed.
I never claimed a double standard. Microsoft is certainly free to make design decisions after demoing a product, and people do not (for the most part) complain about those things. What people are complaining about when they mention "missing features" are not simply changes in implementation but COMPLETE REMOVAL of core features that were making the product what it was. I would never claim that either company, Apple or Microsoft, is in the right for removing complete features that were announced and much less demoed.
I picked up a Vista license from the CIO office on campus and tested it out in a mission critical environment (bugs or failures would have/did lead to problems with work I was using Windows for on my MBP) just so I would have some basis to talk about it from, and I encountered no end of problems that a typical user would be completely bewildered about when attempting to perform actions as simple as moving files around. Indeed, I noticed many of my peers on campus that have the exact same problems I noticed since our CIO dept. made the poor choice to "upgrade" to Vista on all newly purchased laptops so soon. Now I'm not going to claim to be the power user to end all power users because I'm not but I have much more technical knowhow that the typical, everyday user (even in a technologically oriented engineering school such as mine) could ever be expected to have and I say Vista is not even worth the $20 I paid for my media, much less the $300+ or whatever ridiculous price the regular end-user price is now. I'm just glad I had the foresight to make a clone of my SP2 environment before I tried "upgrading."
ZACTLY, still waiting for them to get Vista right. My next computer comes with my tax rebate, my first Apple, a 24"i-Mac! buh-bye MS, hell-low
Note to you: It may have escaped you but Apple is primarely a hardware company. Services (iTunes) come next and then software.
The specs for Leo were upped because of two reasons:
1) To sell more hardware
2) To save on software development (being able to cut really old hardware out)
Try and get your head around those facts. You winboys are really starting to look like douches commenting here based on random observations and feelings.
Whaaa?Since you are arguing against comments I haven't made I think it's useless to continue this.
Do you know that for sure?
I listed those features in the very same message you quoted....
And wireless TimeMachine, and deep-sleeping OS X while booting to Windows, and resolution independence, and some photobooth-effects in iChat, and continuous backups with timeMachine...
And we ARE talking about features like that here.
And Apple has done that.
And this is relevant to the discussion.... how? I don't think I have made any claims about Vista being a good OS. I think it's crap.
Good for them.
I'm personally more interested in what Apple's touch implementation(s) will look like in 2010.
Should be fun...
I'm personally more interested in what Apple's touch implementation(s) will look like in 2010.
Should be fun...
A friend of mine worked on the user experience design of Vista in its early stages. He described the process as hopelessly moribund due to its size and the structure at Microsoft. I saw the original interface for Vista, and what ended up going to market bore no resemblance whatsoever to the early (and FAR superior) prototypes.
Doubtful that any features in an OS this early on will even make it into the final candidate.
Doubtful that any features in an OS this early on will even make it into the final candidate.
Oh my God, Apple is in big trouble! A Microsoft blogger has announced some cool features will be released sometime after 2010 to counter what Apple products had in 2007!
APPLE IS DOOMED???!!! doomed to attract more PC boys like me!
the touch capabilities on the iphone are great. I have seen the microsoft demos of their touch stuff. they are pretty cool.
But, I think that the mouse and keyboard are going to be around for a LONG time. I can type much faster than I can write, with a pencil or finger. And as screens are getting larger, who wants to move their entire arm around on the screen to tap and drag? It will get really tiring. Have you seen how fat and out of shape a lot of us are?
The mouse/trackball/trackpad/etc. is perfect for this task. Also if a laptop had a touch screen and a keyboard up at the same time, you have to hold your arm up to track the screen with your fingers. A pretty uncomfortable way do it. My fingers can go from the screen to the trackpad with very little effort.
This thread is hilarious. This site is getting worse and worse. I've never even owned a windows box, but even I agree with most of the pro-windows statements made here (especially the guy who said Apple doesn't make new software compatible with older OS's - my flatmate once couldn't get an airport express to work on a year old powermac G5 cos he hadn't bought panther and I remember having to upgrade to tiger for something equally ridiculous; Windows contrastingly supports far more for far longer, provided it wasn't formatted on a Mac...). It's unbelievable how many of you think that anybody who posts on these forums about how Apple's guilty of a lot of what MS are assumed to be Windows fanboys (or even employees) with some kind of agenda.
Newsflash people: There is nobody dedicated enough to upholding the ubiquity of the Windows platform as to troll Macrumors! There are no Windows fans, the way there are Apple fans. My favourite are those of you who spell it Micro$oft whilst Apple's execs have been embroiled in an options backdating scandal that contrasts somewhat with Bill Gates' decision to give away most of his money to charity and relinquish his position as the richest man in the world.
What interests me most about this article is that Windows is rebranding back towards version numbers (another example of Windows copying apple according to someone in this thread). I wonder what constitutes full version increments since 3.1?
I'm guessing 95, XP and Vista, or 95, 98 and XP, but I don't have a clue. With so many dud OS's (2000, ME, Vista...), I would like to know which ones MS thought constituted a big enough overhaul to give them a new number? I realize that I'm probably asking in the wrong place, but does anyone know?
Newsflash people: There is nobody dedicated enough to upholding the ubiquity of the Windows platform as to troll Macrumors! There are no Windows fans, the way there are Apple fans. My favourite are those of you who spell it Micro$oft whilst Apple's execs have been embroiled in an options backdating scandal that contrasts somewhat with Bill Gates' decision to give away most of his money to charity and relinquish his position as the richest man in the world.
What interests me most about this article is that Windows is rebranding back towards version numbers (another example of Windows copying apple according to someone in this thread). I wonder what constitutes full version increments since 3.1?
I'm guessing 95, XP and Vista, or 95, 98 and XP, but I don't have a clue. With so many dud OS's (2000, ME, Vista...), I would like to know which ones MS thought constituted a big enough overhaul to give them a new number? I realize that I'm probably asking in the wrong place, but does anyone know?
Hopefully this'll bring up some friendly competition between MS & Apple to make better products.
I didn't even bother to read the thread, as I knew it would simply be a call to arms for people who associated their personal values as human beings with...operating systems for inanimate machines.
Every major Microsoft release has had a version number. You can look this up on Wikipedia. They simply haven't called the OSes by those names in marketing.