[esXXI]

Originally Posted by james9490

Tiger was just released not too long ago, and there is no information about when Leopard will come out. My guess is that it probably won't come out until at least June next year, and there is a good chance that next major Service Pack for XP will come out before that.

Um, what has Tiger's release date got to do with anything? It's out now, Vista isn't. Comparing it with the future Windows version is inane because it's not going to be competing with it. Leopard is, which Steve Jobs said will be coming out around the 'end of 2006.'

Yes. I can really see a Windows XP SP toting more features than the next major update to OS X. Really.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by esXXI

It always makes me laugh when people go "Dude! Longhorn [as it was called then] will blow away Panther!!!" and then that changed to "Dude! Vista will blow away Tiger!!!"

No kidding. It's not even fair to compare Tiger to XP because M$ dropped the ball in getting a fresher operating system out.

That's okay though; SP3 will blow Tiger out of the water, right? </s>

[brokenjago]

Tiger was just released not too long ago, and there is no information about when Leopard will come out. My guess is that it probably won't come out until at least June next year, and there is a good chance that next major Service Pack for XP will come out before that.

I don't understand how a Service Pack can be compared to a dot release of Mac OS X. Dot Releases add a plethora of new features as well as improve existing ones (such as spotlight, dashboard, etc,) while XP service packs, with the exception of SP2, are simply massive bug fix rollups with new bug fixes, including a *few* minor features. Microsoft has gone on record saying that SP2 was a unique Service Pack, and that future SPs will follow the normal model (update rollups.)

Even *if* Microsoft pulls another SP2 with SP3, what exactly was added to XP with SP2? About 3-4 new wizards, (Wireless Networking, Windows Updates, others) a Security Panel that consolodated already existing features into one "easy" to use panel, numerous Bug Fixes, and a Pop-Up blocker for IE6. A couple of new control panels for already exsisting features (with the exception of the wireless networking thing). It changed a few defaults, like keeping the firewall on (which should have been on from day one.)

On the other hand, the upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 was massive. Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator, Quicktime 7, Core Image, Core Audio. Major updates to iChat AV, Mail, Safari, Xcode, DVD Player, Address Book, Font Book, Preview. Numerous additions and fixes to the Kernel. A new UI (this wasn't exactly a good thing,) and hundreds of other changes that improve the Mac OS X experience.

So you see, the difference between a Windows Service pack and a Mac OS X dot update are quite significant, and shouldn't be compared, unless you want to look supremely uneducated .

In addition, Steve Jobs announced at the WWDC 2005 that Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard would be released by Late 2006 / Early 2007, the same time that MS is set to release Longhorn, and so will directly compete with it.

[james9490]

Originally Posted by brokenjago

I don't understand how a Service Pack can be compared to a dot release of Mac OS X.

Don't you realize that OS X releases are still all under "10.x"? They advertise as if each version is new but in reality it isn't. It's same as Service Pack since each version is really a series of patches and add-ons on the same operating system called OS X. It's just like SP on XP.

On the other hand, the upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 was massive. Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator, Quicktime 7, Core Image, Core Audio. Major updates to iChat AV, Mail, Safari, Xcode, DVD Player, Address Book, Font Book, Preview. Numerous additions and fixes to the Kernel. A new UI (this wasn't exactly a good thing,) and hundreds of other changes that improve the Mac OS X experience.

So, they are all just added enhancements to the original idea. How's that different from SP?

In addition, Steve Jobs announced at the WWDC 2005 that Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard would be released by Late 2006 / Early 2007, the same time that MS is set to release Longhorn, and so will directly compete with it.

See, Apple is failing again because they have said that they would release new version every year. It is very common that they slide back release dates, so Leopard probably won't come out until mid-2007. So technically speaking Vista will be competing with Tiger, and it will win massively. Leopard will be just a desperate catch-up.

[brokenjago]

You completely avoided my points on what Windows XP Service Packs are. Please Address them.

Thanks

Also, why does it matter what Apple names it's operating system? If it named it "Apples and Oranges have fun in the desert while being attacked by large monkies" and added 1 crap feature, would that constitute a major release for you? The Nomenclature should not matter; It's the substance that counts.

Also, Service packs don't generally "add enhancements to the original idea". They consist generally of bug fixes and a few *minor* "features", such as the "Set Program Access And Defaults" list that was introduced in SP1 (and only because of a court order.) I have yet to see a Windows Service Pack that contains a new Search functionality, an equivalent to Dashboard, an Automator ripoff, native DVD functionality for WMP, or anything that can be constituted as a new program.

[james9490]

Originally Posted by analogika

2) PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW A DISABLED SECOND BUTTON *NOT* PROVIDING ACCESS TO AN UNNECESSARY (BY DESIGN) HIDDEN INTERFACE FEATURE IS "BAD INTERFACE.

It is bad because the feature should be easily accessible (=ENABLED BY DEFAULT) from the beginning if it's there to be utilized. With Mighty Mouse, user has to take time figuring out how to enable the second button first, then manually enable it. It's just one more thing user has to deal with, and they shouldn't have to deal with it.

3) PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW CONTEXTUAL MENUS ARE *NOT* HIDDEN INTERFACE.

It is because you click on a visible object when you execute contextual menu. That's why it's called "contextual." You go with a context of something visible, so it's not like you are in the dark trying to click blindly, hoping you might end up hitting something. You see a visible object, you decide you want to do something with the object, and click on it using a visible button on your mouse. How is that hidden?

[james9490]

Originally Posted by brokenjago

You completely avoided my points on what Windows XP Service Packs are. Please Address them.

Windows Service Packs are a mix of adding new features and addressing existing issues. How is that different from OS X releases? Jaguar, Panther and Tiger all include numerous bug fixes that should've been fixed for free. You completely ignore all that.

[brokenjago]

I'm not disagreeing that Apple should address bug fixes in their current OS instead of future ones, but they *also* add huge new features such as Spotlight, Dashboard, etc. Vista, no doubt, will contain a large amount of bug fixes for Windows XP that should have been addressed by them. It happens with every company. That's not the argument. I might also add that Microsoft will charge something like $200 at the *very* least for the upgrade to Vista, while each and every upgrade to the Mac OS is $129, and $80 if you're a student.

The argument is that I think comparing Service pack to dot releases of Mac OS X is a invalid argument that stems from the fact that the nature of their releases are different.

Again, Service Packs, generally, add minor new features while Mac OS X dot releases add Major new features, functionality, improvements, and programs.

For instance: The Mac OS X page on Apple.com advertises "over 200 new features" in Tiger. While I think that number is unfairly calculated, there are at least 50 major new features that a Service pack from Microsoft would never match.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by james9490

... Jaguar, Panther and Tiger all include numerous bug fixes that should've been fixed for free. You completely ignore all that.

Bait taken. And since I am a curious soul, please be so kind to name at least one major bug for each of the aforementioned releases that were fixed only with a subsequent .2, .3 or .4 (as in "not free") release of OS X.

WTF was I thinking? Nevermind.

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by james9490

See, Apple is failing again because they have said that they would release new version every year. It is very common that they slide back release dates, so Leopard probably won't come out until mid-2007.

It's interesting that you comment on Apple being late with release dates, because Vista was originally scheduled to ship in late 2003. Now it's scheduled to ship in late 2006. 3 years' worth of delays is better than a couple of months, in my opinion. Also, we don't *know* that Apple will postpone the release date. With the exception of Tiger, they have been pretty good with their yearly updates strategy. Leopard may be a depature from this, but more development time = a better, more stable release for Mac users everywhere, and Tiger is already a very robust OS.

Edit: @ Edit effgee

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by james9490

Don't you realize that OS X releases are still all under "10.x"? They advertise as if each version is new but in reality it isn't. It's same as Service Pack since each version is really a series of patches and add-ons on the same operating system called OS X. It's just like SP on XP.

Just like XP is a series of patches and add-ons to W2K which was the same to NT 4? After all, they're all based on NT.

[esXXI]

Originally Posted by james9490

Don't you realize that OS X releases are still all under "10.x"? They advertise as if each version is new but in reality it isn't. It's same as Service Pack since each version is really a series of patches and add-ons on the same operating system called OS X. It's just like SP on XP.

Wow, nice logic there. They're all under 10.x because that way Apple keeps the recognized name "OS X." Just because they're not OS XI, OS XII, etc has nothing to do with the features. I suppose somehow they'd all become "bigger" updates just because they were +v1.0?

Originally Posted by james9490

So, they are all just added enhancements to the original idea. How's that different from SP?

If any XP SP added the kind of features that Panther or Tiger did then you'd have a leg to stand on. They're not in the same ballpark.

Originally Posted by james9490

See, Apple is failing again because they have said that they would release new version every year. It is very common that they slide back release dates, so Leopard probably won't come out until mid-2007. So technically speaking Vista will be competing with Tiger, and it will win massively. Leopard will be just a desperate catch-up.

Umm..

1) Apple has NEVER stated to releasing an update each year. They didn't in 2004 (Panther: 2003, Tiger: 2005), and you'd know that if you actually researched or even just googled before spouting nonsense.

2) Slide back what release dates? The hell? They gave Tiger a release date of 1H 2005 and they pretty much hit the middle of that. Apple doesn't give out release dates for OS X updates until they're fairly sure when. Again, you're talking nonsense.

3) Desperate catch up? Oh right, I suppose MS' Exposé-similar alt+tab and Dashboard rip off Gadgets just announced recently are super original ideas.

Either you're a) A poor troll (don't like being called that? Then stop being ignorant), or b) Some member here that's yanking our chains for a laugh.

Originally Posted by james9490

Leopard will be just a desperate catch-up.

Quoted for laughdom.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by esXXI

1) Apple has NEVER stated to releasing an update each year. They didn't in 2004 (Panther: 2003, Tiger: 2005), and you'd know that if you actually researched or even just googled before spouting nonsense.

They were releasing about an update a year up to Panther, after which (if I recall correctly) Steve specifically said they were not going to release an update every year, and intended to release them roughly every 18 to 24 months.

[christ]

I don't care what a windows weenie thinks about Windows.

I don't care what a windows weenie thinks about MacOS.

I don't even care what a windows weenie thinks about Mighty Mouse. What dragged me into this thread was the title - and it is apparent that james, and people like him, are what is wrong with the world today.

Some people don't like MM - they are not forced to use it. Some people do, however, like the MM - james seems to think that these people should not be allowed to have the MM, because he, a self-confessed expert, doesn't like it.

I am fed up of self-proclaimed experts telling me what to do with my life, and that includes james, GWB, Tony Blair and anyone else of that ilk.

james - go preach to the choir somewhere: everyone else - stop feeding the trolls.

Please.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by james9490

It is bad because the feature should be easily accessible (=ENABLED BY DEFAULT) from the beginning if it's there to be utilized. With Mighty Mouse, user has to take time figuring out how to enable the second button first, then manually enable it. It's just one more thing user has to deal with, and they shouldn't have to deal with it.

But you see, that's EXACTLY the point: They DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

Nobody NEEDS contextual menus on OS X. They aren't enabled by default, and there is no non-functional second button on the mouse that could confuse users.

The user doesn't *have to* take any time whatsoever to enable something that he doesn't need, UNLESS he ACTIVELY WANTS TO.

End of story.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by analogika

... End of story.

Wishful thinking?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

Just like XP is a series of patches and add-ons to W2K which was the same to NT 4? After all, they're all based on NT.

Continuing this train of thought, Win95, Win98, and WinME were basically a series of patches and add-ons to MS-DOS 6.0. The different versions of OSX are more than just service packs.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by james9490

It is bad because the feature should be easily accessible (=ENABLED BY DEFAULT) from the beginning if it's there to be utilized.

Many "features" of your precious Windows and other Microsoft products do not come enabled by default. There are many more which should come disabled by default (or not even made options) because of the negative side effects of having them enabled by default (often security-related, sometimes usability-related). Yet you do not blast Windows for these.

Mighty Mouse is this same way. There are proven negative side effects to having a second mouse button by default, so Apple doesn't do it.

With Mighty Mouse, user has to take time figuring out how to enable the second button first, then manually enable it. It's just one more thing user has to deal with, and they shouldn't have to deal with it.

If a user is advanced enough to consider starting to use a second mouse button, then they are more than advanced enough to enable it as an option.

It is because you click on a visible object when you execute contextual menu. That's why it's called "contextual." You go with a context of something visible, so it's not like you are in the dark trying to click blindly, hoping you might end up hitting something. You see a visible object, you decide you want to do something with the object, and click on it using a visible button on your mouse. How is that hidden?

Not all visible objects can or should have contextual menus, however. There is rarely if ever any good distinction between which visible objects have contextual menus and which do not, therefore "visibility" is not a clue. QED.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by james9490

Yeah, and that's simply because one-button mouse doesn't even have an extra button!! Something is better than nothing, right?

Not necessarily. Anything otherwise good can have negative side effects, and when those side effects are known they must be taken into account. Multiple mouse buttons are known to have negative side effects on usability, for example, and this must be weighed against their usefulness. Apple has achieved a compromise solution with MM by including a second button but disabling it by default.

Bad implementation is worse than not doing anything wrong. Can't you see that?

Certainly. But I don't believe Apple's implementation is "bad", at least as far as concerns disabling the second mouse button by default. I have gone into great detail already concerning how I do not believe the Mighty Mouse is perfect, and I list some of the flaws I see. However, your claims are for the most part ridiculous and hypocritical.

Objective, informative discussion is not and never was the intention commonly held by you and Mac users in this forum.

Well, since it doesn't appear to have ever been your intention either, I guess that makes us even.

You Mac users disgust me.

Then why do you continue to come here? Are you some kind of masochist?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by james9490

By the way Apple is not considered as "one of the consumer electronics-design industry's pioneering companies." It is actually Microsoft, SONY, and Samsung.

According to whom? Apple has won far more awards in consumer electronics design than they, so evidently someone considers them a pioneering company.

(Laughing) Who said that I was a graphic designer? I am an expert engineer, not a "designer."

OK, I'm going to call your bluff here. If you are an "expert engineer," then please provide an example of programs which you have worked on. It doesn't matter to me if you were the sole engineer or not, as long as you contributed in a significant way. Please describe the way in which you contributed to these programs as well.

[budster101]

He's not a masochist, he's a MacSochist.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by james9490

]See, Apple is failing again because they have said that they would release new version every year. It is very common that they slide back release dates, so Leopard probably won't come out until mid-2007. So technically speaking Vista will be competing with Tiger, and it will win massively. Leopard will be just a desperate catch-up.

Well, the big difference is that Apple doesn't take 4 years to catch up.

[Mr Ti]

Wow, I can't believe I just spent over an hour reading this thread and all I learnt was that Jim the Troll probably works as an 'expert engineer' repairing Emachines at his local PC World, and that 'expert' 20 years with computers was spent entirely reading magazines for one platform. What a genius...oops...I mean anus.

[budster101]

You spent over an hour and couldn't get his name right? It's JAMES. Wait, who cares...

[randompost]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I like to come here and blow off ... I think everyone does -- but the vast majority of us ... take a firm jab ... seriously.

We sure do.

Random quote. See page 4 for further details.

[james9490]

Several people in this thread have mentioned that Apple provides higher quality products. I am just going to prove you wrong by using an article from your very own web site:

------------
iTunes 5 for Windows plagued by bugs
Users of Apple's new iTunes 5 for Windows are reporting a number of major issues with the software. The widespread problems have been identified on Apple's official discussion forum. Apple has stated that it is aware of the problems, but has yet to provide solutions for affected users. Problems include: crashing during installation, loss of playlists, inexplicable duplication of songs, conflicts with other software, and issues with the iTunes Music Store. Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, points out that rolling back to iTunes 4.9 "can be difficult or impossible, and Apple's lack of official recognition or public response regarding these problems is driving many users up the wall."
------------

This is going to be a HUGE blow for Apple. They can't even get a MP3 player to work right. This is EXACTLY why I've kept telling you Apple is NOT the computer company you would want to invest your money in.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by james9490

Several people in this thread have mentioned that Apple provides higher quality products. I am just going to prove you wrong by using an article from your very own web site:

------------
iTunes 5 for Windows plagued by bugs
Users of Apple's new iTunes 5 for Windows are reporting a number of major issues with the software. The widespread problems have been identified on Apple's official discussion forum. Apple has stated that it is aware of the problems, but has yet to provide solutions for affected users. Problems include: crashing during installation, loss of playlists, inexplicable duplication of songs, conflicts with other software, and issues with the iTunes Music Store. Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, points out that rolling back to iTunes 4.9 "can be difficult or impossible, and Apple's lack of official recognition or public response regarding these problems is driving many users up the wall."
------------

This is going to be a HUGE blow for Apple. They can't even get a MP3 player to work right. This is EXACTLY why I've kept telling you Apple is NOT the computer company you would want to invest your money in.

Name me one x.0 release that has been bug-free. Idiot.

Thanks for playing; now please drive through.

[Mr Ti]

In the UK Jim is short for James

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by james9490

Several people in this thread have mentioned that Apple provides higher quality products. I am just going to prove you wrong by using an article from your very own web site:

------------
iTunes 5 for Windows plagued by bugs
Users of Apple's new iTunes 5 for Windows are reporting a number of major issues with the software. The widespread problems have been identified on Apple's official discussion forum. Apple has stated that it is aware of the problems, but has yet to provide solutions for affected users. Problems include: crashing during installation, loss of playlists, inexplicable duplication of songs, conflicts with other software, and issues with the iTunes Music Store. Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, points out that rolling back to iTunes 4.9 "can be difficult or impossible, and Apple's lack of official recognition or public response regarding these problems is driving many users up the wall."

The hell of it is, that's still better quality than most Windows products, and I say this as someone who openly accuses Apple of not having enough respect for the QA process.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by james9490

Several people in this thread have mentioned that Apple provides higher quality products. I am just going to prove you wrong by using an article from your very own web site:

------------
iTunes 5 for Windows plagued by bugs
Users of Apple's new iTunes 5 for Windows are reporting a number of major issues with the software. The widespread problems have been identified on Apple's official discussion forum. Apple has stated that it is aware of the problems, but has yet to provide solutions for affected users. Problems include: crashing during installation, loss of playlists, inexplicable duplication of songs, conflicts with other software, and issues with the iTunes Music Store. Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, points out that rolling back to iTunes 4.9 "can be difficult or impossible, and Apple's lack of official recognition or public response regarding these problems is driving many users up the wall."
------------

This is going to be a HUGE blow for Apple. They can't even get a MP3 player to work right. This is EXACTLY why I've kept telling you Apple is NOT the computer company you would want to invest your money in.

Dear God almighty - you most definitely are the dumbest retard I have had the misfortune to encounter in a very, very long time. I highly recommend you never, ever chew gum and attempt to walk at the same time - you might just trip and hurt yourself.

Have you even tried to validate the quote above? No? I didn't think so, either ...

Yes, the iTunes 5 installer might have more bugs than necessary - shouldn't happen but it did. Unfortunately, QA sucks at pretty much any software company these days. Do tell, my dearest brainprince - how many system patches did Microsoft release in the last couple of months alone (for XP as well as Windows 2000) that were withdrawn the very same day they were released because they caused serious issues at a system software level? I remember at least two - how many do you remember??? Did Microsoft re-release these once the bugs were ironed out? Yup. What do you think Apple is going to do?

On to a very practical example - aside from 8 Macs, I also own two Windows XP boxes (a Shuttle SB81P and a Shuttle SB61G2), both running Windows XP Professional and both of which have iTunes 4.9 installed.

Experiment 1 - Installing iTunes 5

So I went on to Apple's website, downloaded the iTunes 5 installer and upgraded iTunes - installed flawlessly on both machines. No lost playlists (with 6GB of music each), no crashes, nada.

iTunes 5 worked like a charm on either machine - weird, huh?


Experiment 2 - Reverting to iTunes 4.9

Now, dear Lord, what to do if we don't like iTunes 5? How do we get rid of it? Yo brainprince! Ever heard of "System Restore"??? Luckily enough, I had set a system restore point on both machines before installing iTunes 5 - feeling adventurous, I reverted to exactly that restore point on both machines, rebooted them - and guess what? iTunes 4.9 was back - in all its glory.

Weird, huh?

But I didn't want to stop there just yet - there might just be the occasional poor soul who doesn't have the faintest idea what "System Restore" is and/or how to use it ... on to the next experiment ...

Having been brought back to iTunes 4.9 nirvana by the mighty system restore function, I felt even more emboldened and deleted that very restore point on both machines (actually, I turned off system restore completely because I normally don't use it) ... ... creepy.

I then installed iTunes 5 again on both machines. Again without crashes, hiccups or similar disasters. Rebooted the two boxes and iTunes 5 purred like a kitten - even liked both of my iPods - the 60 gig regular iPod as well as the 1 gig Shuffle ...

Weird, huh?

I then used "Add/Remove Programs" to uninstall iTunes 5, rebooted both boxes - hellbent on restoring iTunes 4.9. After the reboot, I peeked inside the iTunes folder, and lookie what I found there:



See the name of the folder to the left of the red arrow, cutie? What in the world might I find in there? You can't even begin to imagine my anticipation ...



Uuuuuh ... a file labeled "iTunes 4 Music Library.itl" ... spoooooky.

Even someone as mentally challenged as you might be able to picture my next steps - installed iTunes 4.9, deleted the iTunes Music Library file created by iTunes 5 and moved the one shown above up one level inside the iTunes folder - and guess what, genius?

It worked! iTunes 4.9 was back in the game - all the playlists, window position, preferences. Every single thing was back in place.

Weird, huh?


In essence - I have (largely) stayed away from commenting on your preposterous "usability analysis" of the MM and Apple products in general because it's too painfully obvious that you are nothing but a poor sap who is desperately clamoring for some attention (Why is that anyway? Your mommy didn't hug you often enough when you were a kid?) - any kind of attention, really.

And most of the time, your senseless blabbering was quite entertaining, really. But if anyone still needed even the slightest shred of proof that every single iota of your 20 years of "usability/engineering/IT/everything experience" is based on nothing but the mindless regurgitation of press clippings ... well, here's the pudding.

Do us all a favor please - follow the best of old internet traditions and FOAD.

And since pleading didn't help - maybe money will do the trick. $25 via Paypal for a lock of this thread, $50 for a bannination of this fudgepickle.

[Kevin]

What exactly is a fudge pickle anyhow?

[effgee]

To me it's just another way of saying "idiot" and/or circumventing the §$%&-filter - urbandictionary has a different definition, a rather gross one at that. Aside from that, I just love the way that word sounds (and yep, in my personal dictionary it's one word).

[budster101]

85% market belong to Apple.
------------------------
The nano will insure it to grow.


Apple is in the BLACK. No Debt moron.

[Kevin]

Aaah. the brown necktie.

[sek929]

Apple releases a buggy program and you fortell it's doom?

If I remember correctly M$ released a buggy-ass OS, what was it called again, oh yeah... ME.

The only decision my PC friends make with iTunes/iPod problems is that their next machine will be a Mac. So far 3 of my best friends are so fed up with a lifetime of Microsoft that they won't even let me tell them how to buy a good PC, they just want a Mac. I don't blame them, my computer is incredibly impressive for a 4 year old.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Mr Ti

In the UK Jim is short for James

As it is on Star Trek.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by budster101

85% market belong to Apple.
------------------------
The nano will insure it to grow.

Apple: And we won't be satisfied until all your music are belong to us!

[james9490]

Originally Posted by sek929

The only decision my PC friends make with iTunes/iPod problems is that their next machine will be a Mac. So far 3 of my best friends are so fed up with a lifetime of Microsoft that they won't even let me tell them how to buy a good PC, they just want a Mac.

That's pure laziness on your friends' part. Mac won't solve that.

[james9490]

Originally Posted by effgee

Do tell, my dearest brainprince - how many system patches did Microsoft release in the last couple of months alone (for XP as well as Windows 2000) that were withdrawn the very same day they were released because they caused serious issues at a system software level? I remember at least two - how many do you remember??? Did Microsoft re-release these once the bugs were ironed out? Yup. What do you think Apple is going to do?

Apple will make you wait because they don't have the resource necessary to fix bugs in a very short period of time.

Microsoft releases more updates because they are resourceful and they constantly improve things. Why is that a bad thing?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by james9490

Apple will make you wait because they don't have the resource necessary to fix bugs in a very short period of time.

Microsoft releases more updates because they are resourceful and they constantly improve things. Why is that a bad thing?

James, not that this matters, but it's not just Apple that updates their software, but a whole fleet of Open Source software developers that update their software, which Apple picks up and includes in future OS X releases. Many OS X updates have included updates to vital services like OpenSSH, OpenSSL, MySQL, PHP, OpenLDAP, rsync, etc. etc.

I know that according to you, OSS is a big joke, so I'm sure that instead of asking about this process so that you don't sound like a complete idiot making ignorant comments, you'll just blow off what I'm saying with your usual rhetoric.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by james9490

Apple will make you wait because they don't have the resource necessary to fix bugs in a very short period of time.

Microsoft releases more updates because they are resourceful and they constantly improve things. Why is that a bad thing?

A different theory, equally supported by the facts:

Apple will make 'you' [us, whomever] wait a while more, because they want to make sure the fix they release is actually a proper fix, with no subsequent bugs and screw-ups.

Microsoft release more updates because they want to get the fixes out there as fast as possible, which in turn causes many (if not all) of their updates to perhaps fix the issue they were meant to fix, but also create ten other issues Microsoft will subsequently have to release fixes for.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by james9490

That's pure laziness on your friends' part. Mac won't solve that.

Uhhh, yes it will.

Dropping M$ after years and years of abuse through an inferior OS isn't laziness, its intelligence.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by james9490

Apple will make you wait because they don't have the resource necessary to fix bugs in a very short period of time.

Microsoft releases more updates because they are resourceful and they constantly improve things. Why is that a bad thing?

Huh? Apple isn't actually writing most of the patches. Open source groups are. Apple works with thousands and thousands of programmers all over the world to get these patches out. That's the beauty of open source.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by james9490

Apple will make you wait because they don't have the resource necessary to fix bugs in a very short period of time.

Microsoft releases more updates because they are resourceful and they constantly improve things. Why is that a bad thing?

Right. Witness SP2, its problems, and the number of IT departments who refused to apply the patch.

[budster101]

DLL < The bestest.... <sarcasm>

Where is .Net anyway? Vomit.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by james9490

Apple will make you wait because they don't have the resource necessary to fix bugs in a very short period of time.

Um, past history contradicts this. Every time a security issue has been found, Apple's response time has been measured in days; usually less than three. When most Microsoft security holes are found, the response time is measured in weeks.

Of course, neither comes anywhere near the open-source operating systems, where the response time is usually measured in hours, but that's not something you want to hear so you'll ignore it anyway.

Microsoft releases more updates because they are resourceful and they constantly improve things. Why is that a bad thing?

Most of their updates are hardly 'improvements', at least in the sense you're probably thinking of (i.e. 'it does more stuff').

[budster101]

Microsoft has had the same problems since WIN 3.1 - Today's pile of sh!t. Different Name, same issues.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by james9490

Apple will make you wait because they don't have the resource necessary to fix bugs in a very short period of time. Microsoft releases more updates because they are resourceful and they constantly improve things. Why is that a bad thing?

That is your reply to my post? That is the input your brain provided you with after 20 years of experience? You manage to string together a total of three sentences - each of which having nothing to do with what I wrote - and you call yourself an expert engineer?

**biggrin**

Assuming you are even remotely old enough to have 20 years of experience in anything (*), the only thing that seems to have gone "expertly well" for you over the aforementioned period of time is the apparently breathtaking rate at which your intellectual capacity deteriorated.


(* - Time to fess up, cutie. What high school you go to? How much time did you spend in the same grade with your younger siblings? Two years? Three? Don't tell me it''s four or more - that'd shock even me.)

[Millennium]

Calm down, effgee. It's entirely possible that this guy has his MCSE, you know. They like thinking they're experts.

[alphasubzero949]

I had some guy with a MCSE tell me that Apple was going out of business and that OS X paled in comparison to XP.

Maybe he's right considering all of that training he received.