And you thought Vista was looking like a colossal failure before

22 Comments

• Unfortunately your story is completely one-sided...
  

• bigern, unfortunately for Microsoft, his story is wholly correct... but don't worry - you can just buy a Mac with OSX for less than a comparable Dell, a lot less, and then run all your favourite Windows apps in a virtualised window if it makes you feel more at home.
  

• The delayed OS, the continual lawsuits, the failures to comply, SqlDataSource...dude, they weight heavily on all of us. They are a constant source of distraction. Hopefully heads will roll after the product ships, and Microsoft will finally slim down and become more agile.
  
  One of the best features of Vista, that you hear little about, is DirectX 10. Should we be surprised that it's been going through fairly regular releases? No. Too bad that isn't being recognized and emulated.
  

• Have you guys been sniffing glue? I am forced to use a Mac (OSX) every day for compatibility testing. I loathe my time on that machine. Yes, some things are pretty, but big whoop. I can be more productive withing Windows with a hang-over and wtih my mouse-arm in a sling.
  

• There is no "story." This is my opinion. Last I checked, I don't need to form a counter argument for my own opinion.
  
  You know, I was thinking after I wrote this about how DirectX is a sort of quiet success story in the Windows world. The Xbox 360 is an amazing accomplishment as well. It's not that Microsoft is a dinosaur, but its flagship product is far from inspiring.
  
  And if you loathe OS X, I guess you're going to hate Vista since it's clearly inspired by the Mac. ;)
  

• "And Steve Jobs demonstrated part of the reason that OS X has evolved so well: Iterative development. Five versions in five years, and people actually pay for the upgrades! Would people have upgraded Windows XP in this fashion? I doubt it, but making those incremental steps sure would have made a lot of sense to me."
  
  First, consider that while Microsoft has not released major UI upgrades, MS has certainly provided numerous patches and service packs, *free of charge*. This iterative release methodology that you speak of is a sham. For all we know, Apple developers and engineers could keep deficiencies in the code simply to compel users to get the latest and greatest with next year's version. To me, it's clearly not a good value proposition if I have to upgrade my OS at a cost every year to get the latest features and fixes. If anything, Microsoft has demonstrated a better adherence to the iterative technique by deploying regular updates to the userbase. You've sipped the Kool-Aid already...
  
  Second, few (if any) major enterprises use Max OSX as the primary computing platform despite the touted security advantage that Macs supposedly have, the price advantage that you alude to, and the whiz-bang, easy to use, highly intuitive interfaces. You'd think companies would be all over that! So why is this not the case? Hmmmm...Imagine for a moment that instead of offering service packs for free, Microsoft decided to sell them to the customers.
  
  Could you imagine the uproar and outrage?
  
  Where is my value proposition now? You mean, I just spent $##,000,000.00 upgrading my machines to the latest version of OSX 6 months ago, and now you're releasing a new version and you want to charge me $#,000,000.00 to upgrade all the clients that were just installed?
  
  Please. Back off from the Kool-Aid and pretty pictures.
  

• Uh, were there new features in the service packs? I don't recall any. Fixing what's broken hardly constitutes iterative development or good will. The OS X releases are not service packs, they actually add value to the platform.
  
  Clearly people are willing to pay for new features and do find value in it or they wouldn't be doing it. Let's face it, the only point people wanted to get to prior to Windows XP was one that didn't include BSOD's.
  
  And I didn't say anything about pricing advantages or the "enterprise" or any other such nonsense. That's your argument, not mine.
  

• "Fixing what's broken hardly constitutes iterative development or good will."
  
  I've worked with too many consultants and consulting companies not to laugh at this :)
  

• "Uh, were there new features in the service packs? I don't recall any. Fixing what's broken hardly constitutes iterative development or good will. The OS X releases are not service packs, they actually add value to the platform."
  
  This comment is proof you have no clue what you're talking about. There were several new features in XP sp2 (firewall, information bar for ie, etc). Check out sp2 for exchange as well, again there are numerous new features that are being given for free.
  
  Microsoft also has a lot more to develop when they develop a product. Apple doesn't support a ton a management/enterprise related features and interfaces that Microsoft supports in every product (WMI, Group Policy, COM, etc). Every app has some sort of interopability. When/If Apple ever figures out this is why Microsoft is successful in the enterprise, they might be a threat to Microsoft.
  
  

• "Microsoft also has a lot more to develop when they develop a product. Apple doesn't support a ton a management/enterprise related features and interfaces that Microsoft supports in every product (WMI, Group Policy, COM, etc). Every app has some sort of interopability. When/If Apple ever figures out this is why Microsoft is successful in the enterprise, they might be a threat to Microsoft."
  
  Apple *does* have management in their applications... you can lock down a Mac the same way you can lock down a PC. You use Apple's directory service, called Open Directory (it is based on OpenLDAP, and Kerberos -- hey, sounds a lot like AD!) or you use Active Directory with some simple schema extensions (which are standard and published as an RFC), and you can fully manage a Mac -- you can specify default email server, default LDAP server, home directory location, etc. Like GPOs.
  
  Now you may say "wait, why can't GPOs manage the Macs?" but then you have to ask if that makes sense, really, as very few AD admins know or care what a Mac is. Is that Apple's fault? Not sure... it's really down to what the business wants. But there are options available, and they work quite well.
  
  Apple has released 5 OS upates in the past 5 years, compare to 1 (or 0, depending on how you're counting) for Microsoft. And yes, they charge for them. BUT, Apple also releases, about every 2-3 months, a service pack. Currently 10.4 is on version 10.4.7, meaning 7 "service packs" have been released since 10.4 shipped last April.
  
  As for calling out Microsoft for the great "new features" they have added with their 2 service packs in the last 5 years... LOL. "Hey, they added a firewall!" I mean, if OS X hadn't had one built in in the FIRST release of OS X 5 years ago, it wouldn't be so darned funny. Apple is innovating much faster, and they are much more nimble. I think from a technology standpoint, there's no question who is innovating more, and who is innovating faster. What *is* a valid question is whether Apple really cares all that much about grabbing significant portions of Fortune 100 business. That's a valid question, because there are specific things that these companies want (global support standards, detailed roadmaps, ability to buy an identical product configuration for 18 months, ability to use one OS on all hardware for 18-36 months, etc.,) which Apple would consider to slow their ability to innovate, and which may in fact mean they don't want the business. *shrug*
  

• What I find interesting is that apple glue sniffers claim as features new applications. Say Apple releases OS X 10.11 which now includes iFence and iDogChain. These will be regarded as great new features of the OS.
  
  But Microsoft includes IE with Windows, and they get sued and yelled at for bundling.
  
  Here's a question for you...
  
  If you love OSX so much, and the OS is so clearly superior. Why aren't you developing enterprise applications on it? Why waste your time with .NET if the OSX environment is so superior?
  
  Oh that's right... the OS doesn't provide the necessary functionality.
  

• "If you love OSX so much, and the OS is so clearly superior. Why aren't you developing enterprise applications on it? Why waste your time with .NET if the OSX environment is so superior?
  
  Oh that's right... the OS doesn't provide the necessary functionality."
  
  Hey, I'm not a developer. So I don't really care.
  
  As for the OS not providing the necessary functionality, I don't follow. Let's see, what enterprise applications run on OS X?
  
  * Java 1.5, and associated J2EE stacks. So this includes JBoss (officially), and BEA Weblogic (works; not currently supported, but that's a money issue).
  
  * Sybase
  
  * Oracle
  
  * Tibco
  
  * The whole Perl/PHP/MySQL/Postgres thang. These work for enterprises -- they don't have as many Microsoft suits selling them as the end-all be-all. So fewer CTOs of Fortune 100's consider them, though they do work quite well.
  
  Sure, OS X lacks ASP.NET. Small wonder. Then again, Microsoft creates ASP.NET and then puts a number of proprietary hooks in the browser in the name of "thin client" which don't work for any other browser on the planet, because they're proprietary plug-ins. This is no thin-client at all; it's an application which uses a "browser" as a front-end, but which loads all manner of proprietary plugins, forcing the desktop choice on all users. I've seen it numerous places. That's where the tying complaints come from.
  
  Mac OS X is UNIX; nearly everything you can run on Linux you can run on OS X, and most of the stuff you can run on AIX/Solaris/HP-UX you can run on OS X as well. This "the OS doesn't provide necessary functionality" is complete bunk; it's only true if you actually mean "the OS doesn't provide the necessary Microsoft proprietary technology," which I could see given that this is an ASP weblog. Or you could say "hey, OS X doesn't support Microsoft SQL Server," but it does support Sybase SQL server, which if you recall was the product Microsoft bought rights to. They're both capable databases. So, I'm wondering who has the blinders on. Do you even know anything about OS X?
  

• I simply hope Windows Vista to be a huge success as I would hate to see myself working with Java or Objective C. I mean, you can point out many of OS X's advantages, but it doesn't have .net.
  
  There are two clear different strategies. On one side, you've got Apple who is trying to win out the hearts of the end user, by creating nice end user experiences. On the other side, you've got Microsoft clearly betting on the developer, making it easier than ever for him to create good applications in a fraction of the time. Being a developer I prefer Microsoft's strategy as I am not a masochist.
  

• I know I'm late to the party here (sorry about that) but I wanted to point out that Mac users CAN (and frequently do) pay for the major releases of OS X, but just like Microsoft, Apple releases minor revisions for free. I, for example, currently use OS 10.4.7. But that doesn't mean I paid for 10.4.4, 10.4.5, and 10.4.6. I just paid for Tiger (10.4).
  
  I'm curious to hear more about this Parallels product. How is the performance?
  

• See my next post!
  

• > Oh, and there's this "little" suite of products called iLife that beat the pants out of anything available on Windows, free or otherwise. It comes with the OS. Where are the apps like iPhoto, iMovie HD and iDVD on Windows? Oh yeah... they don't exist.
  
  Well, MS tried to include a browser, and they got sued. They tried to include a media player, and they got sued.
  
  Government hypocrisy at its finest.
  

• That's a cop-out. Look at Movie Maker. It's a joke, and it certainly doesn't support HD. They tried to do photo management just by showing thumbnails, and it's not ideal either. I think the whole monopoly case was a joke from the start, but even what they've tried has been remarkably unimpressive.
  

• > That's a cop-out. Look at Movie Maker. It's a joke, and it certainly doesn't support HD. They tried to do photo management just by showing thumbnails, and it's not ideal either. I think the whole monopoly case was a joke from the start, but even what they've tried has been remarkably unimpressive.
  
  Point is, MS is no position to start offering first-class applications bundled with the OS anymore. Everybody will whine and moan that they're being "squashed" by the big monopoly machine. Jeez, Apple can put in an HTML editor with their OS? Why doesn't Adobe complain that that'll take away sales of their Dreamweaver product?
  
  Jeez, MS can't even support PDFs in the next version of Office without Adobe crying foul.
  
  If you think the IT world would be a more secure, easier to use place with Apple ruling the roost instead of Microsoft, well, it wouldn't. We'd have all the same problems we have now, except that we'd all be bitching about Apple instead of Microsoft.
  

• Some good comments being made.
  
  I think an important point with Apple are there releases are that the don't charge a huge amount to upgrade (does add up over the five years admittedly, but you don’t have to upgrade to still have a full useable OS). How much is a Vista Ultimate license going to cost? I paid £45 (with student discount) from Apple for the full OS on the day it was released, can’t see me doing that for Vista.
  
  Microsoft have done an excellent job with C# and Visual Studio, but they haven’t taken full advantage of the Vista release and while its good, I think OSX 10.5 will be a better product because of it.
  
  Reason I am not developing mainly in Objective-C and Cocoa – job market, however I have the books to start reading once I get pass my current commitments, Core Animation looks like it could be interesting to work with…
  

• Did I say that the world would be a better place with Apple on top? No, I said that MS doesn't have nearly as good a product as Apple. Don't put words in my mouth to serve your case.
  

• Serve my case? Stop putting words in my mouth. I don't give a hoot who's on top, bottom, 3rd, 15th or whatever. I will do what I need to do to make money in the IT business. If that means making Apple apps, that's great.
  
  Since I use Java, .NET, ColdFusion, PHP, Oracle, mySql, SQL Server and a whole pile of other tools, many of them open source, where do you think my loyalties lie?
  
  Yeah, I'm a MS shill. That's it.
  
  Mark my words: Apple will never be anything else other than a bit player in the PC/OS space as long as they force customers to purchase their hardware with their OS. If you can't realize that colossal mistake that Apple still sticks by, then you'll never, ever understand why no matter what BS features Apple puts into their OS, it won't make a shred of difference.
  

• Colossal mistake? I don't think you understand what business Apple is in: The hardware business. Where do the margins lie? In hardware... iPods and Macs. I think they make great software, but that software is intended to sell hardware.
  
  Do the math... make hundreds of dollars on a computer or a few bucks on software. Doesn't sound like a difficult choice to me.