Please go to http://developer.apple.com and read up on OS stuff. OSX is not a wrapper on BSD. It just has a BSD layer which will give you the look and feel of BSD when you drop into the unix shell. All the kernel stuff is written by NeXT/Apple… including the networking stack, Virtual Memory, Process mgmt and IO stack(filesystems, storage layers etc.). If you dunno much abt operating systems, I suggest not commenting on ‘em in public forums. Peace.

I definitely will read up on that… and I may stand corrected (I really don’t have the time or inclination to learn all of the layers of the Mac system). But I stand by my position on all other points.

And I have to say… if it is an Apple-written kernel, then they shamelessly ripped Unix off.

I take it you are a Mac fanboy and declare all things Apple to be superior to all things Microsoft?

Perhaps you should address my other points before getting snotty.

The article isn’t brilliant, but your answer in the comments is just sad.

Sanu made an educated point (of course, you didn’t do your homework), and your argument is a lame personal offense, which shows the depth of your mental process. (It’s reflected on your writing, too.)

If you’re not prepared to see your flaws exposed, don’t publish on a weblog.

Hmmmm, interesting… using personal offense to decry personal offense. How… ironic…

Alright, let’s talk about my article.

Of course it isn’t brilliant. I jotted it off from the top of my head. It was never intended to be a deep, researched, intense project (I have a job, and not as a journalist, so I can’t spend time delving into the cracks and crevices of everything I write here… note the “opinion” tag that is turned on for this article). It’s a blog, dude… get over it.

Second, Sanu was right there… he almost got all the way through his point, which was good and informative… and then he went all vigilante and had to bust out the insults. Well, if he can’t take it (and if you can’t take it), then don’t dish it out. I deserve the right to defend myself in the manner in which I am attacked.

Next, you make some comments… but none of them are backed up in the least. Sanu gave a link to where one could go to see what he’s talking about. Where’s your brilliant point? And where’s the backup?

So it seems to me that you feel that the reverse to my treatise is fact? So, we should all choose up sides? Apple or Microsoft? Is that your idea?

In the end, if my “lame personal offenses” invalidate my ideas, then surely you can see that yours and Sanu’s lame personal offenses achieve the same goal.

The real point of the essay is that people can have different ideas and still get along. There doesn’t HAVE to be argument among the disagreement. Are you saying that you disagree with that premise?

Let me know…

Actually shouldn’t these people be staying off your property rather than shunning you away? the internet is a free community. BTW microsoft IS better, y? Bill Gates for starters… and mucho mulah.

but in all reality if you’re a serious developer then macs are just stupid… they’ll just be replaced with consoles soon, no difference.

keep up the good work and dont let dumb shits get in your way michael, you argue a very good point. apple peeps are usually snobs, and have poor reasons for their “superiority”. i have a zune, windows vista ultimate, and i am a microsoft fanboy. i hate everything apple because you can do shit with a mac that you can’t do with a pc. but a pc can do everything a mac can. come on… they run intel now… bleak points apple fan boys…

lol i especially like the fact that apple woulnd exist if it werent for MS… BITCH!

Thanks, dude.

Ha! Good one. I don’t know if Macs will be replaced with consoles, but that’s certainly a funny point.

The best thing about being a Mac developer is that many compilers come with OSX on the disc. I wish Microsoft would do the same.

I have to agree on the Bill Gates point. Everyone knows that Woz was the Apple tech genius whereas Jobs was the marketing genius. Gates seemed to do it all.

I am actually sort of a fanboy of both Apple and Microsoft. I think MS gets a raw deal from a lot of naysayers and Apple gets a lot of praise where not much is due. But they are doing a lot better with their products since they went Intel, I must say.

apple wasnt that bad until that ipod took off… great companies were left int the dust… simply because apple advertised so much! i used to have a creative zen… so awesomem… cheaper than ipod and could do more! WTF?

btw you do bring out the points that people are just blind to see… mainly windows has more free software, so it doesnt need all the bundled crap. microsoft loves developers, SDK’s for all! if they charged less for the os they probly wouldnt be hated as much lol.

funny, my friends hdd crashed in his mac… my my pc (thinkpad) you can just pull out the hdd and swap in a new one, his mac had to be completely taken apart.. keybard, mobo everything. i guess simple is better.

Apple doesnt have quality hardware. The failure rate on apple
internals is redonk! My bro in law has been using my sis’s pc for ages
because the nic on his mac took a dump and there wasnt much in the way
of a workaround. Although hes since switched to a usb solution (i
think)…there was still this extended period where it seemed like
there was no easy workaround. What apple has done, as a provider of
both the hardware and software platforms, has provided an ease of use
by narrowing the scope of the functionality of its peripherals. Take
that stupid apple wireless router. It has the wan rj45 jack, the power
prongs that pop out of the case, and a goddamn 2 color interface
light. Oh it works as soon as its plugged in, but these mac blowhards
come to us pc users because they dont know how to set up a secure
network…and their bandwidth gets usurped by anyone with wifi and the
intelligence to know a free hot spot when they see one. I have a ton
more to say on the subject, but im done taking a shit and my thumbs
hurt from typing this out on my phone(Nokia N73, NOT iPhone).

Additionally, Look at an apple product like the nano. Anyone recall the public furor over a screen that would get so scratched in a pocket full of lint that it looked like someone too a belt sander to it? And itunes, what a complete and total lack of corporate responsibility. itunes is the most common front for credit card fraud nowadays. you get your card stolen? some asshat busser at the resturant you were at last night just got himself $500 worth of crap music from itunes on your dime. Good luck reaching someone at apple. their customer support is NON EXISTANT. I’ve seen an entire order of the most extreme high end G4’s, all for use across various departments of internationally syndicated magazines, that had a 96% failure rate out of the box, because the internal architecture of the boxes were utter crap.
Talk about form over function will you…what about the cube…that thing isnt even good to keep tissues in, let alone stuff a computer in there. constant heat issues, and a power button that would power it on or off if a stream of sunlight hit it and changed the ambient temp enough. Innovative my ass. Here’s the only good use for it:
http://www.techgadgetforums.com/files/apple_aquarium.jpg
And once the iphone hits shelves, expect another flood of public outcry as people realize they can only get about 40 mins of talk time out of it if they watch a movie, or listen to a couple of tracks, or take a few photos, and we’ll see how underpowered that battery really is.
And of course, you’ll be locked into using itunes for moving any media over to it…
Its quad band, but not 3G, so you can use it in all over the world, but get data at a sluggish rate.
Anyone wonder what the touch screen will do when you are holding the phone to you head?

the Mac Vs PC ads are plain BS. As long as Macs remain unupgradeable, they are worthless.

I don’t want to contradict you, Baron, since I believe that the iPhone will be a huge iFlop, but they just announced that the battery life will be excellent. Of course, I am doubtful… the new claims are an increase of like 500% over previous observations, so it seems about as dubious as the claims of iPod battery life.

Also, the iPhone is supposed to detect your cheek and disable the touchscreen. It’ll still get filthy, though, I’m sure.

Excellent point, sotark. One thing that I love about Microsoft is that they try very hard to remain backward compatible as much as possible. Whereas Apple will frequently make an OS upgrade break nearly all software for previous versions.

I know you’re referring to hardware, but I think the same can be said for software as well.

The only battery life prediction I would trust would be one from a company that makes cellular handsets, such as LG, Nokia, Samsung, Motorola. They have tried and true experience when it comes to real world application testing. While they are generally optomistic, I find it extremely hard to believe that Apple has allowed for a 500% increase in battery life, without having some massive chunky battery sticking out of the iPhone’s ass.

I think Apple is perfectly able to run battery life tests and collect accurate numbers… and then report numbers that are far inflated over the ones they collected

I mean come on… who gets more than a few hours video playback from their iPod? And they want us to believe we can get 4-6? Feh!

well i dont want to be mean but i luv my make….. i do however see the complications it has so im not going to say its better than a pc. i like them both. naturally because i own a mac i like it better but like i said its not as pc friendly as the apple company says… its also limited wen it comes to share ware…. programings a drag too. pc’s are good because they are cheaper and are more comonly used so im glad that you guys use them…. personally i prefer not to run apple only or visa versa….. i wanna use both. make peace between the two…. now apple can run windows by the way…. and you guys can google this “OSX on a PC” there is a hack on a chip that you over ride and you can then install OSX on a PC computer…. somthing that normally would not work…. so if you want just do that.

Bill Gates grew Microsoft into a large multui-billion worldwide corporation using questionable unethical business practices most of which could be considered illegal. Microsoft actually stole technology from Apple for Windows and some of Apple’s ideas (see Pirates of the Sillicon Valley where Jobs suggests the demise of IBM by delivering computers to the Japanese market with Apple software — I know its a movie but its based on reality) — I have used Windows PCs for years before switching to Macs in 2003. I try to avoid Microsoft products whenever I can because Microsoft (and you can care to agree or disagree with this statement) is a poor competitor in the market and make second rate products. That is why they try to force competitors out of each market they enter. Even when Microsoft makes a good product if you buy it that will have negative consequences for the rest of the market.

During the original browser war Netscape was popular although their business had some problems — Microsoft saw the browser as a threat to their ubiquitous and dominant Windows operating system (while Netscape popularized the browser) they were crushed cruelly by Microsoft when they bundled Internet Explorer with Windows. Apple began bundling apps with their Mac OS back when they were struggling to bring their company back into profitability and continue to do so even now — most often their bundling does not have an adverse effect on competitors (although their bundling of MS’s Mac IE may have contributed to the harm of Netscape’s browser as it saw declines in its user base on both Mac and Windows platforms.

I try as I have stated to avoid Microsoft products — that applies even when using the Mac as you know Microsoft makes software for both Windows and Mac OS X and so does Apple — I have MS Office X for Mac and still use that version. I have not upgraded to Office 2004 and won’t upgrade to Office 2008 either. I have no plans to upgrade my PC that I still have to Windows Vista from XP or buy a new PC with Vista nor shall I upgrade my Office software for WIndows to the latest version. Will not pay MSN’s monthly subscription fees for a premium account nor shall I buy XBox or Zune.

Microsoft is better as a software company their hardware compared to their software offerings suck — even their software is not the best but still better than their hardware. Apple has succeeded with iPod + iTunes because they used superior software to Microsoft’s Windows Media Player while device makers of other hand held music/video players are dependent on Microsoft to supply the software. Apple’s level of independence enabled them to make better software. iPod is successful largely because of iTunes software and ease of use.

In the consumer electronics space there is plenty of choice Microsoft cannot limit choice to Zune like they limit Windows users most often to their software. I will boycott Microsoft’s Windows monopoly as I said by not buying Vista either at retail to upgrade my PC or buy it bundled with a new PC — I’m also boycotting their Office software monopoly by refusing to upgrade my existing copy of Office for Mac or WIndows.

Excellent post, but I have to disagree on a few points.

If my Marketing class in college taight me one thing, it’s that marketing is part of the product. And Microsoft sure has won that game, judging by the installed-base.

As for Microsoft’s hardware vs. software, I have to disagree. The Xbox and the Zune are far better products than anything they’ve produced in the software arena. In my opinion.

It is highly possible that if Apple had licensed the original Macintosh OS when they made it to other computer manufacturers, continued innovating the OS and continued the license agreements — imagine being able to install Mac OS on a Dell or HP PC capable of running Microosft Windows. In the event Mac OS could run on x86 non Apple based hardware all this time and kept being innovated (Mac clones were killed in 1997 — so the Mac OS had remained licensed till then but Apple was unable to keep innovating it all that time and until buying NeXT had no roadmap good enough for a Mac OS to succeed OS 9) it is possible that Mac OS and Apple software also being everywhere would be capable of maintaining its market share of the 1980s (remember when Mac first came out it had the type of market share Microsoft enjoys today but Apple made the mistake of not licensing Mac OS when Microsoft did and even when Apple experimented with Mac clones it was probably too late they waited till Windows got good market share and Apple during the 1990s was struggling to survive as it lost its flair for innovation and was managed just by marketing guys — the point is Apple would have kept its original market share and the Mac OS would today be the dominant OS platform — with Windows probably having 5 or 6% of the market or maybe Microsoft would have even less than that after adding Linux to the equation.

Yes Microsoft has more market share than Apple because its OS is everywhere — its available to everyone regardless of what computer they use — any x86 hardware whether Intel or AMD will do — imagine if all those Dell, HP, Gateway, Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo PCs could run Windows, Linux and OS X all along (they could also run OS 9, OS 8, System 7 and earlier) — for OS X to be available to everyone more people would probably choose OS X or Linux over Windows — OS X market share could even now grow more than it is if OS X was not limited to Apple hardware — Apple would already have 90% of OS market if its OS had always been licensed and innovated properly from the start — and Motorola would probably have the type of dominance Intel does.

In a comparison article I read comparing Windows Media Center, MSN TV (formerly WebTV), and XBox 360 to Apple TV etc it discussed that Microsoft stopped further development of MSN TV because they would give the hardware away free and make money from long-term subscribers but no one would sign up long-term only short-term — when making Windows Media Center Microsoft did not want to lose money from selling the hardware of even giving it away free — they had problems with MSN TV sales so they decided to give Media Center to PC makers and let them compete amongst themselves on hardware sales — Microsoft would make money only on the software.

It mentioned the Apple TV concept and said Microsoft tries to limit the available software products on the market (and hardware products when Microsoft tries to make the hardware) from third parties because Microsoft makes second rate products and people tend to buy Microsoft products more often when they have to. Their is no other choice — when a better alternative is present consumers will buy non Microsoft products but Microsoft tries to force competitors out of the market so it can limit the market to its own products forcing consumers to use second rate products made by Microsoft.

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/apple-i-phone-is-hacked.html#links

That’s the above link to the article. It states Microsoft HATES COMPETITION BECAUSE ITS A POOR COMPETITOR.

Windows has blue screen of death and defective XBox 360s have what is called red ring of death. One problem I have with Media Center is I would have to buy a new PC preinstalled or bundled with Microsoft’s Media Center software to use it — if I already have a PC and wanted Media Center why couldn’t I buy it at retail with a Media Center remote and use it with my existing PC why get a new Media Center PC why couldn’t XP Media Center be installed on a PC with XP Prof etc — same could be said of Vista Media Center in a few years why not have it on a Vista Ultimate PC or Vista Home PC.

Existing Windows users can’t upgrade to new hardware and buy the Media Center software off the shelf, they have to buy a whole new PC. It would actually be quite difficult for Microsoft to support any random TV tuner hardware users might dig up, so selling Windows Media Center as a package deal makes sense.

Another issue: The trouble for Microsoft is cable and satellite companies feel no need to sell their customers on Media Center when they can use DVRs of their own.

Here’s what prompted Microsoft to make Windows Media Center: By converting MSN TV into Windows Media Center, Microsoft realized that the PC making stooges could lose all the money competing over sales of new TV-centric PCs, allowing Microsoft to safely return to its easy profiteering as a software slumlord.

I WOULD RATHER USE NON MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. LIKE I SAID I have Office X for Mac and Office 2002 for Windows XP I expect to upgrade my Intel based Mac with Front Row from Tiger to Leopard (all Macs now come with Front Row and those that don’t provided they have Tiger installed can use third party software Front Row enabler to enable Front Row and all you need is to get an Apple Remote you can buy a standalone remote just to use with the computer) and get Apple’s iWork 08 — currently have iWork 06 with iLife 06 — will upgrade to iWork 08 but not get Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac or get Office 2007 for Windows because I don’t want to contribute anymore to the Office monopoly of Microsoft.

I can use non Microsoft products. I am considering keeping my XP machine when I need Windows only apps but otherwise run Mac OS X and Ubuntu Linux.

I just love using my existing Mac Mini I would buy the new 120 GB model with Intel Core 2 Duo if I didn’t already own the 80 GB Intel Core Duo model - hope to someday own Apple iMac and Apple TV.

TiVo seems to be having some problems lately differentiating itself well only reason I would buy TiVo is because of Amazon Unbox deal but I don’t use Unbox — most cable and satellite companies now make their own DVRs that work well with their television services its more convenient to use a DVR from my cable or satellite provider than a third party like TiVo. However, TiVo is a good alternative to using Windows Media Center — I like alternative services like the ones TiVo offers where you don’t even need a PC for your multimedia — video on demand can go straight to the TV — of course this defeats the purpose of Apple TV also since Apple like Microsoft requires a connection be made to a computer.

Why should Apple TV have to connect to a Mac at all to sync content — why can’t content be downloaded straight to Apple TV via Internet? These are all good questions — Apple uses the same requirements as Microsoft you need a computer. I would sometimes prefer a solution where the content is downloaded straight to the TV.

Oops here is the link to the article I mentioned (sorry for double post) http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/841EDBB5-1245-42AD-A733-B9B29957347B.html

Wow, that is a lot of stuff to take in.

But I have to take a bit of a contrarian position. I’m not a Microsoft fanboy, by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I am Mac fanboy (even though I just bought a MacBook Pro… sweet mobile gaming rig!), but I do understand that there are pressures on Microsoft that are not on Apple… and vice-versa.

Apple’s position seems to be as egotistical as its leader, which is that there is one best way to do things and Apple will tell you what that way is. Sometimes features disappear from version to version (witness the current furvor over iMovie 8 ). For instance, my 4G iPod had a way to turn the backlight on and off easily: hold the menu button for a few seconds. But my Video iPod lost that functionality. I can just envision Steve Jobs saying, “ah, I don’t use that, so get rid of it.” And they don’t care that I found it to be the most useful feature.

In any case, with this attitude, Apple could never appeal to the majority of computer users. OSX would have to have a major shift in paradigm to get to that point.

Moving on, Apple is a smaller company and spends relatively little of their time on bug fixes. Closed hardware combinations make for more stable software. Therefore, the Apple geniuses (pun intended) can spend more time innovating. Hence you have good usable applications that come bundled with the OS, which I think is great.

But Microsoft can’t get into that game. Anything they do that is competitive in the market gets them sued. Windows Moviemaker simply can’t be a great full-featured product because then Sony and Pinnacle and ADS and others would sue them as anticompetitive. As an example, Microsoft wanted to lock down the kernel in Vista to prevent viruses making alterations (think rootkit). Well, immediately, McAfee and Norton/Symantic started complaining that their anti-virus software NEEDed to hook into the kernel to work properly. Imagine that: they wanted Microsoft to keep their OS vulnerable so that they could keep selling antivirus software. Yeesh!

I forget which, but either Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer once quipped that Windows was safer because it’d had more attacks, and had hence been patched. As absurd as that is, there is some logic to the statement. Microsoft has a lot more experience in making Windows work on extremely varied hardware platforms than Apple does. I fear that if OSX were allowed to be installed on any ol’ hardware platform, it would suddenly cease to be any good. It would probably break a LOT! And there would be kernel panics a-plenty!

Moving on to the links to TV. I think that Media Center is quite a good little chunk of code, especially as it’s been updated for Vista. And, unlike Front Row, it has recording and scheduling built-in.

I can’t say why Media Center isn’t allowed to be sold as an add-on to any operating system. Perhaps they allowed MC to have some OS hooks and so had to bundle it as a different product altogether. Who knows?

But I can say with great ease why AppleTV needs a computer to interface with: Mac sales. Ditto with iPods. The two consumer products have boosted sales of Macs, and that’s what Apple wants. But I agree that it shouldn’t be that way.

In the end, Apple’s products and Microsoft products have their greatnesses. They’re just great in different ways. It’s as though one is wide and the other tall. OSX does some things really well, things that I would think are super obvious. But then they can also get very narrowminded about some things. Most Windows-friendly appliances try to cover most bases, play most formats, etc. But products like AppleTV only play a narrow field of formats. Why? Again, it seems as though Apple knows the best way and that’s the only way. I am just glad that they do know what they’re doing most of the time.

For my money, OSX gets some things very right. They bundle compilers on the disc. There are “folder actions”. And Automator is the reason I bought my first Mac. Windows has none of these things, or else some pale substitutes.

Then again, I imagine that if Microsoft suddenly added these features, then they would be sued by the many companies that have filled those gaps in the past.

-Mike

Sanu needs to go back to the Apple developer site and re-read the information about the constructs of the OSX kernel.

If he thinks BSD is just the UNIX shell interface he has very little understanding of kernel or kernel API design.

Technically it could be said that OSX is based on a modified MACH kernel with a BSD API interface; however, in modern ‘terminology’ even Apple admits that this is all considered to be part of the kernel.

Apple did modify the MACH kernel so that it is not as restricted as the original monolithic MACH design, but Apple didn’t come up with this change on their own, as this has been done in many OSes over the years, most notably Windows NT in 1992 which also has a MACH type of kernel that is modified to support multiple API interfaces so that it also isn’t hindered or ‘tied up’ by a single queue monolithic kernel design.

OSX is very much a BSD based UNIX OS, as the upper levels of the OS that Apple designed, including the GUI all interface with and use the APIs of the BSD layer.

When talking about kernels and OS base level technologies there is a lot of confusion in the OSX and Windows worlds on BOTH sides of the argument.

For example:

Windows as we know it today technically runs two kernels for the Windows (Win32) subsystem. NT is the base OS kernel which is quite hidden from most developers and then there is the Win32 kernel which is more known to developers of Win32 software.

The NT kernel was designed specifically to allow upper level kernels to run on the OS and even run multiple ones at the same time. This is why the NT kernel is sometimes called a client/server kernel architecture as it supports multiple kernel clients to the main NT kernel server.

So the Windows that everyone sees is the Win32 subsystem or Win64 subsystem depending on whether it is the 32bit or 64bit version (and on the 64bit version Win64 and Win32 are separate subsystems). In the past OS/2 and POSIX ran in their own subsystems ‘independent’ of Win32 as well.

Today Microsoft ships a free FULL BSD based UNIX subsystem that runs side by side with Win32/64, and this is easily done because of the multi-OS/Kernel subsystem kernel technology of NT. So WindowsXP,2003, and Vista users (it is on the Vista DVD) can turn on the BSD UNIX subsystem and compile pretty much any UNIX applications or binaries and they run natively using the BSD kernel interfacing with the NT kernel.

On the other side:

Apple has done a great job of working the MACH kernel and creating a well designed I/O (Driver) system for OSX that gives it great performance and makes devices very easy to interact with what would normally be a complex interface if they had used the BSD I/O model.

So there is a lot of ‘lost’ respect for the ‘great’ technologies both of these companies have brought to users and also brought to the computing world that is completely overlooked when OS love becomes a form of love/hate or religious conversation.

If people are actually interested in ’specific’ kernel technologies and how or why they matter, I suggest reading up on not only Apple’s site, but Wikipedia, BSD, MACH, Linux and even Microsoft web sites.

There are TONS of great ‘technical’ articles on the subject, and I can guarantee everyone will find some crumb of new information.

Well I watched the video podcast of the All Things Digital D 2007 event where Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were both interviewed and Steve Jobs said even today he doesn’t really care about getting Mac OS X to 80% market share if he wanted to he could license Mac OS X today — Michael Dell has already expressed that he would be interested in selling OS X to his customers if Apple let him — this is the same man who in 1997 said he would shut Apple down when asked how to fix Apple at the time Apple was in danger.

One thing that bugs me today about Microsoft is that they blackmailed Apple when Windows 1.0 was released to license certain aspects of the Macintosh graphical user interface to them for Windows. Apple had originally refused and Microsoft threatened then to pull Office for Mac off the market if not given a license so Apple under Sculley relented. At the time I think Jobs had already left the company. This was after he left but before his return. Eventually Apple sued Microsoft for violating Apple copyrights — Apple had not filed any patents at the time though but if they had the case might have been able to go differently — then again the issue that they had licensed certain elements enabled the court to dismiss Apple’s case against Microsoft. Apple lost its case on the merits Microsoft stole Apple’s graphical user interface.

I know Apple actually acquired some or all of the code for that interface from Xerox originally but getting into that topic would take more time and research for me to discuss.

Microsoft today has seen its reputation to a certain extent tarnished — it does not have the popularity it had in 2002. The antitrust charges have affected their reputation and their inability to deliver Windows Vista on time while Apple kept issuing new updates to Mac OS X like 10.2 Jaguar, 10.3 Panther, 10.4 Tiger and soon 10.5 Leopard also have had an effect.

In the U.S. their status seems to still be protected and it is sad that the Justice Department has taken Microsoft’s side in the EU case against the company and said that the decision against Microsoft is bad. The Clinton Justice Department — and I’m sure had Al Gore been elected a Gore Justice Department would have had a stronger line on Microsoft imposing the same type of remedies.

Forcing Microsoft to pay fines isn’t going to make them comply with the law they have enough money to keep paying the fines and can still profit but actions like breaking the company up, forcing them to unbundle Windows and/or license their protocols to competitors in a fair way without overcharging for them are needed steps against government should take. The breakup is a bit extreme but the other ones should be done. Alas the Bush Justice Department hit Microsoft on the wrist and let them go — they were too lenient in the settlement it really benefited Microsoft more than consumers.

Microsoft has the money and the resources to continue to fight cases in the courts against it for years if they wanted to unless they reached a point where they felt continuing the case would further hurt their reputation to a certain point where they would rather face the consequences than continue.

In Europe Microsoft has two choices live with the consequences or appeal to European Court of Justice and if they lose their then there is no higher court for them to appeal to.

Even the article I mentioned refers to Microsoft as a software slumlord — they discontinued MSN TV formerly Web TV because they were losing money on the hardware — they gave hardware away for free to sign up long term subscribers but found that hard and so lost money — they created Windows Media Center as a replacement and not wanting to lose money on hardware sales of Media Center just decided to let the PC vendors fight out whose hardware sells better allowing Microsoft to focus on what it is good at being a software slumlord.

I recently got Apple iWork 08 Family Pack for Mac for the low price of $99. That might not seem very low but compared to the pricing Microsoft plans for Mac Office 2008 whichever version you choose all will cost more than $100 and the fact that Windows users can use the latest version of Open Office free as opposed to getting Office 2007 and still have compatibility with Microsoft Office files I prefer to use the alternatives.

I’m not trying to be a Microsoft hater or an Apple fan boy far from it yes I like Apple products but I’m just saying Microsoft mainly copies Apple’s innovations and does so in a poor manner — if Microsoft is going to copy Apple (copying is okay Steve Jobs once said good artists create and great artists copy see Pirates of the Silicon Valley) they can make copies that are equal to or better than the original.

When Microsoft copies Apple they also deny it — they say Gadgets in Windows Vista are different than Mac OS X Tiger’s Widgets. They however, are very similar features but Microsoft lies that they are not. They said parental controls in Windows Vista is a relatively new feature that has never been in a computer operating system before — well yes Windows before Vista has never had that feature but Mac OS X has had it since Tiger was released.

Here’s ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT regarding web browsers: Apple created Safari so they could replace the lagging Internet Explorer for Mac with something better. They succeeded so well that Microsoft just gave up on IE for Mac. It takes a pretty impressive product to get Microsoft to just give up and quit the field, and this is further evience that no one really needs Microsoft. Safari is fast, it’s standards-compliant, it includes the kind of usability features that Apple is famous for, and it’s available free of charge. And now it’s even available for Windows.

I got that from the following website called Just Say No To Microsoft: http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/

Microsoft has lost any good credibility it may have enjoyed in the 1990s due to antitrust issues, its lack of good innovation — this can be debated but it does not really contribute anything worthwhile and only reason it makes XBox game console is not because it wants to profit from it — but because people who buy games consoles have less reasons to buy new computers when these games consoles start integrating other functions like movie playback etc.

You know there are some concerns of Apple developing a digital monopoly with iTunes, the iTunes Store, iPods, iPhones, Apple TV, digital music and video downloads etc but they still captivate the minds and hearts of consumers — they are still supported by plenty of people — their fan base has grown since the first iPods were released that is they still have a great reputation — any concerns of antitrust abuse have not become that serious as of yet and they are really innovating making great products which other companies like Microsoft are trying to copy.

One example as I said before about Windows Gadgets versus Apple’s Widgets Microsoft calls the software that controls Gadgets the Windows Sidebar if I’m not mistaken — well Mac OS X’s widgets are controlled by the Dashboard.

Just a different name that is all. The only innovation Microsoft has provided as far as I’m concerned in Windows is the Start Menu. That’s the only thing innovative in Windows.

If Microsoft does not appeal the EU decision its because they are tired of dragging the case on any further because they don’t want to risk injuring their reputation any further but the damage is already done either way — if they try to fight it further the damage will become worse. They also have a court hearing in South Korea on October 17th if I’m not mistaken.

The money paid to Microsoft to buy their cheap products — and by that I mean that sometimes if their products are good its just because nothing better is offered by competitors or Microsoft has forced competitors off the market — most users that don’t switch operating systems just want to stay in their comfort zone and not try anything new — if you ask Microsoft they actually call Apple an opportunity for them to make their products available to even more users than their own Windows customers — even the Zune team sees Apple as an opportunity as well as a competitor for expanding the market for mp3 players — and Zune wants to obviously dethrone Apple but Jobs joked at All Things Digital D 2007 that a number of employees in the Zune team are iPod owners.

A number of factors have contributed to Microsoft having a poor reputation today with Apple being more popular — for Microsoft to ever become a growth stock again they would have to do something very fantastic. Microsoft’s only major products to date are Windows and Office and with Windows sales slowing somewhat — I read somewhere that they will rely more on Office eventually — Windows dominance won’t go away but Mac market share is growing faster than the rest of the market — Windows Vista adoption is not as high as Microsoft originally hoped they have since allowed XP to be brought back for the time being.

Most people getting Vista most likely are getting them preinstalled on new computers — I doubt existing users are rushing to buy it at retail and upgrade their existing computers. Vista has been having some problems and so Microsoft brought back XP but plan to eventually remove XP sometime in 2008-2009 or 2010.

Sorry for the double post but Michael Swanberg I just wanted to add I agree with a number of posts in your reply to my 2nd post on this article. With this being my 4th post and the one before when I mention the All Things Digital D event being the 3rd post.

That’s a lot to absorb. All good info.

However, I have to somewhat disagree that Microsoft has lost popularity because of the antitrust suits. For the most part, anyone who cares about that is going to be savvy enough to know how to install whatever alternatives they want (Firefox, VLC, etc.). And anyone who might be the victims of the antitrust are most likely not sophisticated enough computer users to really care. These are the people who use phrases like “the blue ‘e’ is the internet, right?” They are familiar with the name Microsoft, but they aren’t exactly going to install Debian just for fun or for an alternative.

Still, very good info. I enjoy your comments.

-Mike

Well I didn’t say the antitrust issues were the only reason but it is somewhat of a factor I can’t imagine Microsoft’s stockholders at the time were happy about the antitrust lawsuit and it did scare away potential investors that had not invested yet but might have been interested in doing so in future.

Microsoft did lose popularity though on a lot of other fronts — its delaying of Windows Vista and when it did ship it was not the product Microsoft originally planned for it — they removed a number of key features they originally planned for Vista when it was still Longhorn. They wanted a new file system Windows Future Storage (WinFS) that is not yet delivered via Vista as planned and they abandoned a number of features that were too ambitious for them to include. If they still tried to put WinFS in Vista it still might not be on the market. They had to remove those to get it to ship and didn’t want to delay it too much more longer than they had before finally shipping it.

The copy protection in Vista and the fact Vista requires so much memory just for graphics — which effects the performance of the computer is for a me a no show. I have no interest in Vista ever I agree with the Bad Vista campaign principles trash Vista not your computer.

Perhaps I was too specific or not specific enough about the antitrust suit issues — I didn’t mean to say they are unpopular because of antitrust even Apple is possibly beginning to face similar charges at least in Europe over iTunes but worldwide they are still popular — Apple bundles Mac OS X by the way Microsoft can argue in the same way they have tried bundling Windows but Apple bundles for the benefit of its users and Apple owns the Mac market — no other computer vendors supply Mac OS — Microsoft though it has been found bundles to protect its dominance in operating systems software — they bundled IE as i have mentioned before with Windows because they saw Netscape as a threat to their operating system and crushed them.

Real Networks has applied same argument to Media Player before Microsoft bundled Media Player Real had more market share but suddenly WIndows Media Player has more market share after the bundling — over the years Windows Media has grown because of unfair bundling.

So Microsoft does not bundle to improve the OS as it claims but to put others at a disadvantage who can’t compete the same way as Microsoft — if Microsoft bundles Media Player Real is at a disadvantage because they cannot react with a similar bundling deal — that is out of the question for them. Of course there are the issues raised that people wouldn’t use Real anyway because of spyware, adware or other intrusive software in their products.

Still Microsoft has sought to defend its Applications Barrier To Entry — the ongoing antitrust case in other parts of the world — have effected their global reputation — and the fact that competitors have finally started to challenge them and have been successful this long in doing so is having an effect.

So a number of key issues are to blame for Microsoft’s declining popularity. Antitrust is just one of them. Their inability so far to make a profit in most divisions outside Windows and Office — those are their only 2 major revenue generators and with problems facing both units — WIndows sales are slowing although still dominant and Office is being confronted with newer, cheaper sometimes free alternatives and Microsoft is losing money in Entertainment and Devices division responsible for XBox and Zune.

It would be ideal for all games on the PC to be coded with OpenGL and OpenGL performance to be improved for high definition graphics then all games can be more easily ported from Windows to Mac and Linux — since Apple switched to Intel it has become somewhat easier for port to Mac but even then code has to be switched from DirectX to OpenGL. Microsoft by using DirectX while it can’t stop gaming on non Windows platforms it can discourage it and make it somewhat harder to do — so they can maintain a monopoly on PC Gaming via Windows — PC games today are commonly meant to refer to WIndows games but PC games are any games made for PC operating systems.

Now Microsoft also wants to control the game console market with XBox and now XBox 360 a problem with the XBox 360 is faulty hardware parts — ever hear of the Red Ring of Death like Windows Blue Screen of Death need I say more! Microsoft has had to extend warranties on XBox 360 and do servicing and repairs — even when Halo 3 came some discs arrived scratched.

The 360’s disc drive could reportedly even scratch discs inserted by their owners into the XBox 360 disc drive. Part of the reason XBox is having losses is because of the defects in the console(s) and that Microsoft has to pay for the repairs or replacements.

Did you check out the website I mentioned on Just Say No To Microsoft: http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/

It mentions how Microsoft ended Mac IE partly because of Safari which is now also available for Windows.

It also mentions a number of other things worth reading.

By the way I have Firefox and VLC but most users often use the software bundled with the operating system because they are almost told to do so — why else does Microsoft push its trash into the computers of Windows users? Some of it may be worthwhile but some of it is just bloatware.

When Jobs returned and no one else would write very many apps for Mac Apple started making its own apps which it included with the Mac OS as an incentive to Mac users to use — even if Apple made these programs and then sold them separately but with Mac interest lower at the time and less development few would buy the apps so Apple bundled them — Apple sells the Mac and gives everything for it away free to encourage users to try it and if they like it they buy it and then Apple when it first started doing this developed a way to save its business and since it became a successful strategy even after surviving from bankruptcy decided to stick with a winning strategy.

There are a few things I would like to point out; these are merely my opinion, however.

I think Microsoft is being treated unfairly in the antitrust. As long as they don’t code Windows to break others’ apps (which they have done, BTW), I don’t see what the problem is. If WMP works and people use it, then more power to MS. They put out the OS, so they deserve to have other products that work well with it. And it’s not as if they’re making money on WMP… it’s free for gosh sake.

As for Real and others on that front, their task should be getting the word out that their product exists and get others to try it. Oh, and their product should be superior too. Otherwise, it is sad that they are using the legal system to make it seem as if Microsoft’s superior marketing strategy is anticompetitive. Sorry, but I just disagree with this. They are also using the suits for free publicity, which I find deplorable.

Microsoft should have sued Apple for bundling Safari with their OS. Hey, it’s only fair, right?

As well, the result of the antitrust suits have made it where Microsoft cannot release good products outside of Office. Microsoft has some sharp cookies working in Redmond, so if they wanted to create a good media player (which WMP isn’t all THAT bad) and a good video editor and a good text editor and such, they could easily do so. But then they’d get sued. So in the end, they have to make their bundled software crappy just to allow the little guys to look good enough for people to seek them out.

I agree with you about Vista on that it is lacking so many things that were promised. However, Vista isn’t that horrible an OS. It should run fine on any machine that runs XP well. As for the graphics requirements, that’s for Glass, which can be turned off. All in all, I like Vista. I have my nits about it, but I also have nits about XP.

In the end, Microsoft’s biggest problem is that they are on so many computers. If Apple had that market share, they’d be in even deeper hot water because their bundled apps are better.

To me it’s really sad that people harp on Windows because of its crappy bundled apps, but then turn around and complain if they make them better. There are wonderful alternatives to everything in Windows. But that’s just not the case with OSX, is it? If you have an iPhone or iPod, what’s the good alternative to iTunes? There isn’t one that I know of. And if you want your firmware up-to-date, there is no other way. Now THAT’s anticompetitive.

There are, unfortunately, no perfect OSes out there. Each has its shortcomings. Each also has its strongsuits. I pretty much use everything, each to its strength (although my Linux box is under the weather right now). It’s too bad that virtual machine technology isn’t to where everyone can use multiple OSes on one machine with ease. Perhaps one day.

-Mike

That’s a very good point the problem is for some companies they can’t make their products work with Windows — especially companies with competing server products that need access to Windows protocols but Microsoft it has been argued has deliberately kept certain information about Windows under lock and key they call this trade secrets — but for a dominant company when they are deliberately hiding sensitive information that if released will give others a better chance to compete and be more compatible then the only way to restore competition is to make them release that info — Microsoft claimed to do so to European regulators but the info they published was incomplete or inaccurate — imagine Microsoft publishing 500 pages about Windows protocols that are worthless — they also charge fees to other companies for licensing of the Windows protocols that are too high and unacceptable to competitors who can’t afford the high prices and the antitrust regulators.

Yes it would harder for Microsoft to innovate today if they really wanted to for the benefit of the consumer but most often when they bundle Windows its just to disadvantage competitors that can’t do the same thing. If WMP is bundled with Windows everyone has one less reason to download a third party media player and more reason to just use Media Player because its in the operating system — Microsoft calls it a feature of the operating system but its just an add-on its software they install on a user’s computer with Windows. Windows does not need Media Player to work — you know Safari comes bundled with Mac OS X but not like IE is with Windows — one can actually delete Safari and the OS will still work because most Apple programs minus QuickTime that are bundled with OS X will work without other bundled programs — I could use another browser besides Safari like Mozilla Firefox and not use Safari at all — I actually use both browsers interchangeably but could choose to use one or the other only.

Your right though each operating system has some flaws of its own and each has its advantages.

I too look forward to the day of running multiple OSes on one machine — i.e. natively dual or triple booting from 1 to another on restart etc or running more than 1 OS simultaneously.

I am beginning to like Mozilla Songbird and they have added compatibility for iPods — I’m sure with each update Apple makes the compatibility might break but am sure as long as Mozilla Songbird is offered if the compatibility breaks they will restore it.

Microsoft faces a tough sell in the mp3 player market since there are tons of different mp3 players on the market they can’t dominate mp3 players the same way they do Windows it is harder — not only are they competing with Apple iPod but the MS Zune has to compete with a number of other players from Creative, iRiver, Samsung, Toshiba etc and with so many different competitors it provides more consumer choice which is good but for Microsoft makes things a bit harder — not necessarily impossible but harder nonetheless.

Apple bundling Safari with their OS is a separate issue — they didn’t do it to cause harm to another company — Microsoft deliberately bundled IE with Windows to harm Netscape not because it just wanted to improve Windows — IE was not a feature of Windows but an add-on.

Over the years IE has become more integrated with Windows making it harder to remove — there was a time when an IE uninstaller was available in Windows to users of Windows 95 and I think Windows 98 had it too — some argued that there was nothing original or innovative about Windows 98 compared to Windows 95 — instead Windows 98 was just a re-branded version of Windows 95 with Internet Explorer bundled — IE was if I am remembering correctly not bundled in Win 95 but I think it was still available back then just as a download — not too sure about that part my memory is not perfect of that time — don’t remember everything but do know some details — however, like I said it was argued Windows 98 was only Windows 95 with IE.

Microsoft had bundled IE to hurt Netscape not to provide innovation to the operating system — not to improve Windows by adding new features that were needed for the operating system to continue to run — Windows 95 did not require IE to work but since 98 it has become a system requirement for that browser to be installed whether it remains used or unused.

The Windows market is a huge market — Microsoft does not own the Windows market per se — there are a number of hardware based PC vendors out there — none of them including Microsoft exactly since they don’t make complete PCs — Microsoft tries to control everything that goes into Windows but they don’t control who runs Windows using what hardware configurations etc — no one else can sell Macs other than Apple because no other vendor is licensed by Apple to do so — only Apple computers can then run Mac OS X there is no competition in the Mac market — the Mac if seen as a market in itself is dominated by Apple and no competition is allowed in that area per se — does that make Apple a monopolist for controlling Mac OS X entirely and not allowing competitors in — in much the same way Microsoft is doing with Windows — well the Mac can also be considered as part of the larger PC market in which case its just part of a larger market where there is choice and antitrust against Apple regarding Macs is not an issue.

Apple started creating their own apps for inclusion with Mac OS at a time when Steve Jobs had just returned to the company and Apple was in trouble no one else would develop more apps for them — so if no one would help save Apple from bankruptcy Apple would save itself — they started making their own apps and bundling them with Mac OS as a broader package to make buying and owning a Mac a more appealing and compelling experience than going for a Windows PC.

If you buy a new Mac you can get iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie HD, iDVD, iCal, iChat, iWeb, QuickTime Player, Safari, Address Book, and Mail all bundled with your purchase - you buy a Mac and get all these cool additional apps most of which are only available to Mac users — these are quirks — special features Mac users can only have - and are designed to seem really cool and work so well they entice users away from buying that new Windows PC to instead go Mac and get these apps that only Mac users can use.

PCs cannot run iPhoto, iMovie HD or iDVD. However, Mac has the complete iLife package including Garageband as well. iMovie does a better job it can be argued — well at least iMovie HD can do a better job than Windows Movie Maker — I know the newest version of IMovie has some problems unless your a newbie to making movies — some of the advanced features Mac users have come to love have been taken away.

Gradually but surely Apple got consumers interested in Macs again — they also made the iPod which became a cultural phenomenon and the next big hit is supposedly the iPhone — Apple has saved itself from the brink of bankruptcy and decided to stick with its new winning strategy — they continue to bundle but seeing how they own the Mac market anyways and its not like they have that big a market share that it affects everyone else they can afford to bundle without causing serious harm.

Apple’s bundling of Mac IE now had some serious repercussions against Netscape — but remember that was still a Microsoft product made for Apple’s platform and Apple was obligated to bundle it under the 1997 agreement with Microsoft which attempted to cut of Netscape’s air on two fronts the Mac desktop and the Windows desktop — once Netscape no longer worried them they stopped major development of Mac IE without an announcement and Apple needing a browser for the Mac created Safari on their own — Microsoft used that as an excuse to exit the Mac browser market completely saying Apple could do a better job providing Mac users with web browsing technology since they have more access to Mac OS X than Microsoft.

As mentioned Apple eventually released Safari even for Windows.

Apple’s bundling of Safari with Mac OS X only had the effect of Microsoft leaving the Mac browser business but they might have done that eventually anyways — they didn’t seem too interested in continuing — they only made Mac IE to thwart Netscape on the Mac and when Netscape was dead they stopped Mac IE to just focus on IE in Windows.

They introduced the MSN browser and began innovating that but stopped innovating IE for Windows completely although unlike the Mac version they did release new updates to IE for Windows like IE 5.0, IE 6.0 etc but no new innovations between IE 5 and IE 6 that seemed that big a deal. Eventually they copied some opf the innovations in MSN browser back to IE for IE 7 when the second browser war which is now under way began — this time there are more browsers to choose from and will continue to be offered indefinately — I hope so at least — no browser will exit the market they will continue being offered as long as they do good — and no company can force another company’s browser to exit.

Aside from Microsoft dropping Mac IE Apple’s bundling of Safari with Mac has had very little impact on the overall computer market — bundling it with Mac has not had negative repercussions through the rest of the market — Apple did not bundle to hurt another company but only to continue innovating Mac OS X and make it continue to appear more inviting, innovative, compelling, appealing and/or worthwhile — next time people still running XP will reconsider the upgrade to Vista would they rather go Vista or switch from Windows to Mac and upgrade from Tiger to Leopard.

Macs can now even run Windows which gives them an advantage over any other PC — Macs can run Windows, Mac OS X and/or Linux while most other PCs can only run Windows and/or Linux or just Windows.

That is why some time back MacWorld Magazine had an issue with the headline that the Mac was now the Ultimate PC!

The DRM issues in Windows Vista though are a big concern for me and is why I would avoid it!

Sorry for the double post but in the first sentence of your last post where you say you don’t know what the problem with Microsoft is — as long as they don’t deliberately code Windows to break other apps which they have done — and you acknowledged that — I do feel that is part of the problem — that is the root cause I was trying to address and on top of that they bundle their apps and design Windows to make their apps work better than others — so if I want to use Real Player or Quick Time with Windows Microsoft deliberately breaks the code so it doesn’t work as well as it should and when I try the bundled Media Player from Microsoft it works perfectly — they bundle what they want their Windows users to use on top of the OS — if you use Windows you don’t necessarily have to run Media Player per se its not illegal to run anything else and they can’t prevent you from installing other software but they can and have coded Windows to make other apps not work as well as Microsoft’s own apps to discourage people from using non Microsoft products.

I feared that remark on my part my may go misunderstood. What I mean is that they SHOULD be slapped on the wrist for making Windows purposely incompatible with others’ products. But just bundling something in with the OS is not, in my opinion, anticompetitive.

As well, you can’t look at the motivations a company has when judging them as anticompetitive or not. Saying that Apple bundles software to save themselves while Microsoft does it to be anticompetitive is not right, in my opinion. You have to judge what is right or wrong for the consumer here. If it’s good for the goose, then it’s good for the gander.

IE is indeed a big part of Windows, but that’s because the core IE code is used in everything, from WMP to Explorer to Outlook Express. You may as well make the argument that OSX has Finder built-in and unremovable. Are they therefore anticompetitive?

All in all, in this day and age, I believe there are certain elements that must be present in an OS as its base. 99.99% of computer users need a way to get to the WWW (how would you go get Firefox if you didn’t have IE?), a way to get to email, and a way to play media files. I believe that these core elements should be included with every OS, period. But I also believe that alternatives should be allowed.

As for MS’ internal code usage, well, I am on the fence on that one. They wrote the OS, so they should have every right to maintain secrets about it that then give them the advantage on other fronts. If someone doesn’t like it, then they are welcome to write their own OS. But to say that one product makes it difficult for another product to exist is almost silly. Think about it in other terms. Should GM sue the City of New York because the subway system makes it easier for people to not buy cars? Should grocery stores sue restaurants? Should PC hardware manufacturers sue Apple because OSX only runs on Macs? Should the makers of Sendmail sue the Ubuntu folks because they deemed another mail server as better, and thus bundled it in with the OS?

So yeah, whereas I agree that Microsoft has done some pretty rotten things in their day, I don’t think that they should be slapped down for every little thing.

In essence, Microsoft won. They elevated their product to the very top of the food chain and no one else has come up with a good alternative. Linux is too difficult for n00bs to configure and there are too many flavors (confuses a lot of people). OSX only runs on the more-expensive Apple hardware.

All in all, I think the really big problem is that Microsoft has gotten somewhat complacent. No other OS is really threatening them right now. So they have gotten somewhat lazy it seems. But on the other hand, you have to give it to MS because they are supporting a product that they could easily have said, “go screw yourself… Windows is as-is and that’s final.” But no, they are patching flaws and exploits all the time.

They are also spending considerable resources on making sure that Vista is compatible as much as possible with older software. Apple doesn’t do that, and I have often said that MS should have a new OS altogether, one that leaves the bad things about Windows behind and opens up doors for the next generation of hardware and software innovation. With their marketing clout, they could make it a success, I am confident, and it would eventually replace Windows, just like OSX has all but replaced OS9. It will be a difficult transition, but I feel it will be really necessary in the long run. Unfortunately, though, they won’t do it because they would lose market share initially.

-Mike

I just meant that with every new version of Windows Microsoft bundles something else in that seems unnecessary — and the hardware requirements for each new version of Windows are more than the last. Imagine someday Microsoft releasing a new version of Windows in 2050 requiring 500 terabytes of disk space — and a much much faster processor, a much more advanced graphics chip etc because they want people to keep paying to upgrade their hardware just to be able to run all the included apps in future versions of Windows because they take more and more space and need more faster processors for performance to run without a hitch,

I am almost positive my existing desktop PC tower running Windows XP Professional would not be capable of running Windows Vista flawlessly without major hardware upgrades.

I don’t mind upgrading my hardware every now and again but upgrading because I’m told to do so to access more features — even if I don’t care about those features but without them the OS won’t work properly is a bit disturbing,

On the note about Apple bundling Safari with Mac — today they continue to bundle because it works well for them — when they started bundling as I said they faced potential bankruptcy and Jobs had just come back and by making their own apps and bundling them with Mac OS X — they still do so now even though they are doing fine because it has proven to be a successful strategy for them to excite more people to use Macs because of the bundled apps in OS X that are only compatible
with Macs.

Now for Apple’s bundling of Safari in Mac that can only be considered a bad thing if said bundling can be proven to have had a negative or adverse effect on competitors.

Did Apple’s bundling of Safari with Mac discourage other companies from continuing to develop web browsers for the Mac? IE was the main browser but Microsoft even if Apple had not made Safari was no longer showing much interest in updating it for Mac users since Netscape’s defeat — they used Safari though as their excuse to exit Mac browsers.

Mac users needed a browser to step in IE’s place and Apple felt the best thing to do would be make their own. Apple’s bundling of Safari has not actually prevented other companies from continuing to make browsers for the Mac or discouraged them from doing so. Nothing in the Mac code-base has been adjusted to make competing products incompatible with Apple’s.

Now Microsoft bundled IE with Windows when they first did intentionally to cause harm to Netscape.

As for what you said about an operating system needing to have a browser to install other browsers it is worth noting that browser software could be supplied on disc — someone could get IE on CD and install it if they wanted IE and it was not on their computer.

However, I can see how having a main browser is important.

Again sorry for the double post but I’d like to add that as I was saying about the bundling issue if it could be proven Apple’s bundling Safari in OS X hurt competitors — it directly prevented others from competing — yes users can still download other programs they don’t need to use the bundled software programs — however, in Microsoft’s case IE bundling was designed to discourage the use of other browsers.

Why would anyone want to download and use Netscape when they could use IE which comes free with the OS? Yes Netscape is a free download but some users it can be argued are too lazy to download other programs or question what would be the point in using Netscape when IE is already in Windows. I don’t buy that laziness argument but it is a possible theory.

Apple bundled Safari not to disadvantage makers of other Mac web browsers — and has not tweaked the protocols to deliberately make competing programs buggy in OS X — they have not tampered with the ability of other programs to run in OS X that compete with Apple;s own offerings nor have they bundled to hurt competition — in both cases Microsoft has though sought to deliberately code Windows to break compatibility of other programs and bundle their apps to encourage users to adopt Microsoft products and discourage them from using anything else.

Microsoft has sought to protect their Applications Barrier To Entry in Windows with the bundling and code tweaking they have done — because of code tweaking they are being ordered to disclose information about the code changes to enable competitors to re-tweak their products so they do work in Windows — and Microsoft is being ordered in Europe to offer an unbundled version of Windows that has not sold too well because there aren’t any incentives to promote N branded versions of Windows over the fully bundled Windows.

WIndows XP N sells at the same retail price as Windows XP in Europe with Media Player — consumers have shown a lack of interest in buying it at retail and manufacturers or PC vendors have shown little interest in offering it pre-installed on their computers being sold.

It is possible if Windows XP N were being sold cheaper than bundled Windows that might be more appealing then to consumers than bundled Windows if promoted and marketed better — Microsoft does not want Windows XP N and/or Vista N to do well though.

Nothing required them to promote Windows N branded versions on equal footing as the bundled versions — or to sell it cheaper etc.

So both are sold the same and bundled Windows seems to sell better.

Apple did not bundle OS X to do serious irreparable harm to competitors to discourage or prevent them from competing — nor have they made OS X deliberately buggy when using competing programs although it has been argued Microsoft has done these things deliberately to harm competition.

The Mac needed a default web browser and IE for Mac which had been the default browser had not been updated in a while — Apple thus introduced Safari to replace the lagging IE for Mac. Microsoft had not updated IE for Mac since Netscape’s browser business had originally crashed and burned — or in other words the Netscape browser folded.

So Apple needed a replacement browser and provided one on its own and it was so good Microsoft just quit the Mac browser market. Apple eventually ported Safari to Windows.

I agree about certain features being required in an OS for it work today that were unnecessary earlier but even Apple when they bundled Safari with Mac it is not as tightly integrated with OS X as IE is to WIndows and that’s a good thing — if there is a problem with Safari on the Mac the Mac OS will still work fine but on Windows if IE is buggy chances are the overall operating system will have trouble.

I’m not sure you’re seeing what I am saying. But you may be correct anyway (I am not an expert on anticompetition legislation).

But what I was saying was that the motive behind an action cannot be used in determining the legality. The penalty, maybe, but not the legality.

For instance, person A kills person B and says he did it because he was mad. Person C kills person D and says he did it because it was fun. Should A or C be let off the hook? But sure, there are such things as crimes of passion and aggravated assault. So maybe you have a point.

The reality of it is, in my eyes anyway, that Microsoft gets slapped because it’s big and has deep pockets. Apple, however, is left alone because the pockets aren’t as deep and they have a small market share. That doesn’t seem fair.

And as far as the web browsers, I don’t find Safari to be any better than IE7. In the end, they both take you to the WWW and render html pages. IE7 is more standards-compliant (or probably standards-dictative) and has VBScript/ASP built-in (so it can render, and is thus more compatible with, more pages).

There can be much debate over the browsers in regards to their security, but in the end, the relative security of an application depends on several factors, and can be subjective to each user. First, the user herself must tailor the application to be as secure as necessary. Second, the application needs to have as few holes as possible, with respect to exploits. So what I am saying is that Safari might have tons of exploitable holes, but if no one writes attacks for them, then it’s secure.

As well, you can take a completely unpatched IE and if all you do is go to GMail, then you’re probably 100% safe. But a fully-patched or assumed-bullet-proof Safari might get hacked if you visit pr0n and pirate sites all day.

Need I point out, Mr. Security Now, Steve Gibson, uses IE?

I agree with your last point about the bugginess of a tightly-integrated piece of code. But that a) could go both ways, and b) could apply to anything. Every application must at some point interface with the graphics driver (unless it runs invisibly). If the graphics driver is faulty, then the whole computer will be unstable, regardless of what you use it for.

OTOH, tightly integrating some aspects of an OS can also be a good thing. If the code is solid, then that permeates the entire experience. It can also avoid other issues. For instance, if the disk access routines were portioned out so that any or all of them could be removed, then you may have multiple pieces of code fighting for the drives and it will result in a slow or stopped system. But by keeping all that in one place, it makes things better.

It’s the age-old programming dilemma. Making common routines is bad if the routines are bad, but good if the routines are good. There can also be the danger of breaking calling routines if a common routine is altered. However, separating the routines out could increase workload and code-bloat if a common change is required across all the similar routines.

-Mike

Mike,

You make a valid point on the antitrust issues. My beef with IE is its insecurity, stability issues. Yes Safari comes bundled with Mac OS X as IE is with Windows but Safari can be more easily deleted than IE. IE is sometimes a memory hog if a Windows PC runs slowly Internet Explorer is likely to blame. Microsoft just patched a critical flaw in IE 7 regarding URI’s or Uniform Resource Indicators — that also affected Mozilla Firefox but they patched their browser sooner.

There was very little innovation between IE 5 and IE 6 because Microsoft felt they had no need to provide such innovations when the browser war was over — yes the browser war has restarted lately and because of it Microsoft has resumed innovating IE with the release of IE 7 adding needed features like tabbed browsing and popup blocking that other browsers have had for a while. Microsoft when they stopped innovating IE originally made the MSN browser and started adding new features to the MSN browser while ignoring IE.

Now Microsoft has resumed innovating IE after how many years? Its been like 6 or 7 years since IE had any real significant updates.

Microsoft even during the U.S. antitrust case argued the same thing that IE is a crucial part of Windows — a feature that is needed for the rest of the operating system to work. A company called Lite PC (www.litepc.com) have made a series of products to help consumers regain control of their computers.

XPLite and 2000 Lite v. 1.9 is marketed as Windows your way.

They are powerful configuration tools for establishing a modular version of Windows where you control what software gets installed on the system and not Microsoft. 98Lite another product they make enables users to speed up performance of their computers running Windows 98 by removing Internet Explorer completely from their computers and upon erasing and deleting the IE files it installs the files used for Windows 95 Explorer in place of the IE files on Windows 98. You get to keep the Windows 98 operating system but without Internet Explorer.

Remember the original Windows 98 and Windows 95 are exactly the same except one has IE bundled in it and the other doesn’t. Later operating systems have had more middleware products by Microsoft bundled with it and some changes to the system — going from Windows Fat32 system in Win 98 to NTFS for Windows NT, 2000, etc and the design changes in XP are worth mentioning.

It has been said before by some harsh Microsoft critics and I agree with them the only innovative thing Microsoft has ever provided Windows users is the Start bar. Nothing else is very unique. They keep trying to copy Apple’s innovations into their own operating system and bundle Microsoft applications with Windows to discourage middleware programs from third parites from succeeding in making any progress.

Steve Jobs once said he ” I have no problem with Microsoft’s success. They earned their success but the problem is they have no taste.”

Not all of Microsoft’s success was earned fairly. Microsoft asked Apple for a license to some elements in the Macintosh Operating System for use in Windows but Apple refused to license it to Microsoft (buy the way Apple bought its original und