Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mabaker · Nov 8, 2006, 06:01 PM

In the wider technology world, by mid-2001, Microsoft was getting ready to ship Windows XP and Apple had recently shipped the first version of Mac OS X, a product that was so woefully inadequate that even it's most ardent supporters ruefully referred to it as a public beta. Every year, it seemed, the Linux desktop was poised to take off. That, still, has never happened.

Apple and its supporters will tell you that Apple spent the past five years churning out major new Mac OS X versions while Microsoft fumbled around trying to finish Windows Vista. This is completely untrue. Though I use and respect Mac OS X, virtually every version Apple has shipped since 2001 has been a minor update, akin to a Windows 98 SE or Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). Meanwhile, Microsoft has pushed an amazing variety of Windows versions out the door since 2001. Some highlights include Windows XP Embedded, Windows XP Media Center Edition (MCE), Windows XP MCE 2004, Windows XP MCE 2005, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (TPC), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. It has also shipped major updates to its digital media software, including three major updates to Windows Media Player, a major IE release--IE 7--major new client-based security applications and services, including Windows Defender and Windows Live OneCare. And this is just a partial list. The point here is simple: Microsoft hasn't sat still, contrary to the FUD you read online.

http://winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp

The Godfather · Nov 8, 2006, 07:58 PM

Well, actually MS likes to call these years is "The Decade of the Xbox".

Eriamjh · Nov 8, 2006, 08:11 PM

He's kinda right, but you best ignore him (Thurott).

chabig · Nov 8, 2006, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

He's kinda right, but you best ignore him (Thurott).

Huh? Everyone says Vista is just XP with a new interface and fancy graphics. They removed all of the innovative features, remember?

Salty · Nov 8, 2006, 08:27 PM

OK OS X.0 yah sure public beta's a good name for it. X.1 was where OS X got reasonable. OS X.2 is when it was really usable, that said Panther, and Tiger have just been great full featured updates.

Millennium · Nov 8, 2006, 09:47 PM

I don't know if I'd say that OSX's most ardent supporters were calling X.0 a public beta, but certainly many people were at the time. As far as that goes, Thurrott actually has a point.

Then, however, he retreats into his usual FUD-shell. What 'amazing versions of Windows' has Microsoft put out since XP? The only truly significant thing they've done with it is IE7, and that only happened because Firefox and Opera were finally starting to eat away at the IE monopoly.

Gossamer · Nov 8, 2006, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

OK OS X.0 yah sure public beta's a good name for it. X.1 was where OS X got reasonable. OS X.2 is when it was really usable, that said Panther, and Tiger have just been great full featured updates.

Have you ever posted without using the phrase 'that said'?

Jawbone54 · Nov 8, 2006, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Have you ever posted without using the phrase 'that said'?

It also bothers me. That said, I never would've noticed it if you hadn't said anything.

mitchell_pgh · Nov 8, 2006, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by mabaker

In the wider technology world, by mid-2001, Microsoft was getting ready to ship Windows XP and Apple had recently shipped the first version of Mac OS X, a product that was so woefully inadequate that even it's most ardent supporters ruefully referred to it as a public beta. Every year, it seemed, the Linux desktop was poised to take off. That, still, has never happened.

While he was correct in stating that OS X 10.0 was kinda "beta like" Apple knew that they would NEVER get it anywhere near perfect without getting it in the hands of actual users. It's the age old chicken/egg problem.

Also, I would like to highlight that XP was VERY delayed, and many features were hyped... and dropped (sound familiar?)

Apple and its supporters will tell you that Apple spent the past five years churning out major new Mac OS X versions while Microsoft fumbled around trying to finish Windows Vista.

And this is where it starts... they were major version updates. I would argue that Windows 95 feels more like Windows XP than OS X 10.0 feels like 10.4. Yes, XP is vastly superior to 95, but for the most part, nothing has changed from a users perspective. The list of items OS X has added in that timeframe seems endless.

This is completely untrue. Though I use and respect Mac OS X, virtually every version Apple has shipped since 2001 has been a minor update, akin to a Windows 98 SE or Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2).

That's just pure BS. SP2 didn't offer ANYTHING to the end user. It fixed security problems and added a few minor features. Most users probably didn't notice anything... comparing that to the 10.1 to 10.2 on OS X is a joke. There were numerous significant upgrades.

Sorry, Paul is just in denial.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has pushed an amazing variety of Windows versions out the door since 2001. Some highlights include Windows XP Embedded, Windows XP Media Center Edition (MCE), Windows XP MCE 2004, Windows XP MCE 2005, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (TPC), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.

Has anyone ever seen a Microsoft XP Embedded system? I think I saw an stereo that had it, but it was something like $600 more than just buying a complete computer...

Anyway, I would argue that many of the "amazing variety of Windows versions" are EXACTLY what he called the OS X upgrades... "minor update, akin to a Windows 98 SE" or rather slight adjustments to the OS.

x64 might be the exception, but Media Center Edition is little more than XP with some components added on. The same goes for tablet [which I hate to remind Paul is an absolute failure]

It has also shipped major updates to its digital media software, including three major updates to Windows Media Player, a major IE release--IE 7--major new client-based security applications and services, including Windows Defender and Windows Live OneCare. And this is just a partial list. The point here is simple: Microsoft hasn't sat still, contrary to the FUD you read online.

Regarding Windows Media Player... in 2001, it was at version 7... and iTunes was at version 2. Fast forward to today, and which would you consider to have advanced more over the years?

IE 7 is much better than IE 6... but that's like saying OS X is better than a calculator... Could IE 7 have been worse than IE 6... I doubt it.

Also, why is it he touts Windows Defender and Windows Live OneCare? Please... the fact that that made his "partial list" is an absolute joke.

I hate to say it, but Windows is boring...

itai195 · Nov 8, 2006, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

That's just pure BS. SP2 didn't offer ANYTHING to the end user. It fixed security problems and added a few minor features.

Please, IE6 pop-up blocker was ground breaking technology.

hayesk · Nov 9, 2006, 10:09 PM

He can claim the various versions OS X were just minor updates over the years, but Exposé was the single biggest improvement in usability since the advent of multitasking.

Meanwhile, what is MS trying to do? Taking away menu bars - it's optional in IE7 and it's coming in the next Office too. Gee what a great idea, hide the only mechanism users have to safely explore an application. What's next? Eliminate icons?