That is because
by Jimmy Greystone - 5/8/12 1:03 PM
In Reply to: ... by dc_2000
That is because "people like me" have a way of hitting nerves by cutting right to the heart of things. That's why rather than actually addressing any of the issues I raise, you just try and pigeonhole me as some kind of Microsoft fan. I'm not for the record. I tend to hate Apple and Microsoft pretty equally, just for different reasons.
Apple is an absolute terror on the business end of things. They routinely kick their "partners" in the teeth, and I swear are systematically tightening the screws on their AASP network so that it's impossible for anyone to actually survive as an AASP if there is an Apple retail store in the area, and the AASP could pose even a remote challenge to that business some day. So just out of nowhere Apple will completely make up some new rule, which isn't codified anywhere that you can actually see, and they'll never tell you anything about it except that you're in violation of it, so make changes. Then after the AASP invests resources into making this change, Apple will decide that they liked the old way better, or have come up with some new place to move the goalpost. It's literally like those Charlie Brown cartoons where Lucy keeps pulling the football away at the last second. There's the way Apple has been systematically dismantling their computer business in favor of iOS devices, and the continued iOS-ification of Mac OS X. Tim Cook will almost certainly become infamous for his comment about how Apple has too much money when the 4-5 year product development cycle Steve Jobs had going starts to run dry. Tim Cook, BTW, is the guy responsible for shipping all kinds of manufacturing jobs overseas. That's been kind of his thing during his entire career. Make use of slave labor in oppressive countries like China to save money. Ten years from now, I expect that Apple will be on the skids once again, only this time there won't be anyone like Steve Jobs to come pull them back from the brink. Intel will likely be the one who buys up a lot of the assets Apple has in mobile CPU technology. Mac OS X and iOS will probably be about as worthless as Palm's webOS was by the end.
Microsoft was absolutely a monopolistic company that abused that position to no end. I was one of those supporting the idea of splitting Microsoft up into three companies. One for the OS, hardware, and mobile stuff (which didn't really exist at the time, but would have been a natural fit), one for all Internet properties, and a third for desktop apps. I think it would have even been good for the company, to help focus each company on a much more narrow scope of products. The Windows developers could really focus on Windows and the Win32 API, not have to worry about shoehorning in a program like Internet Explorer because it couldn't compete on its own merits against Netscape Navigator. I also think that since Bill Gates has largely left the company, Steve Ballmer has done an impressive job of driving it into the ground. Steve Ballmer is a business guy, he's not a tech guy, and so while Microsoft has been quite profitable, it has mostly been because of a dizzying array of new licensing options, which are designed specifically to maximize profits from large enterprise companies that are pretty much addicted with no real way out. I'm right there with some of the major investors calling for Steve Ballmer's head as CEO. At the same time however, after Microsoft lost the anti-trust case, even though it only got a slap on the wrist (and a light one at that), it has become a pretty fundamentally different company in a lot of regards. A lot of the dirty tricks they pulled on competitors in the past are largely a thing of the past. They've made some very impressive improvements to IE's standards compliance, added ODF support to Office, and in large part their products have just plain improved. You just have to get past your fixation on Microsoft circa 2000, and look at Microsoft today.
Basically, what it boils down to, is I could rant and rave about how Bill Gates did this, or Steve Jobs did that, but what good does that really do anyone? I just come off looking like some ignorant lunatic on a tear. Which is the difference between us. I can point to specific actions, like how Apple's flurry of patent lawsuits shows it is running scared of Android in a big way. Its competitors are catching up fast, and Apple is using the courts to try and stave off judgment day as long as possible because they've painted themselves into a corner again like they did the last time around. Technologically speaking, Mac OS X has not changed a great deal since 10.0 was released, and the introduction of the iOS offspring of OS X just makes it all the less likely the desktop version will improve any time soon. Compared to XP, Mac OS X is a major step forward, but Microsoft really stepped up and ripped out huge chunks of the Windows innards with Vista, replacing them with shiny new bits that not just match Apple, but go a step or two beyond. Vista gets a really unfair reputation because most of the impressive bits weren't shiny whiz-bang new features, they were all under the hood improvements. Like significant hardening of the driver model, major revamping of the process scheduler to be more multi-core friendly, Aero was the big visible feature which represented a near total rewrite of the Windows UI as a 3D DirectX program instead of the antiquated 2D GDI+ for XP. Using DirectX meant that the GUI could be hardware accelerated, instead of CPU rendered like XP. Windows 7 took the Dock idea Mac OS X inherited from NeXTStep that Jobs was involved with during his forced hiatus from Apple, and went further with it in Windows 7, addressing the issue of selecting a specific window for a running program. You pretty much have to use expose on OS X, a feature that kind of fell to the wayside a long time ago. Microsoft took the idea of the dashboard and while Vista's implementation was pretty bad, Windows 7 took it to a pretty natural conclusion.
To be fair, Apple's Time Machine backup system is pretty slick... When it works. It's really fragile, and any little change will cause it to throw a fit. If you have say a time capsule backup drive, and for some reason you lose your wireless connection... If Time Machine tries to run a backup before you reestablish the wifi connection, it will fail, and will just sit there and pout about it until you go in and manually reconfigure it. Then, for reasons unknown to me, half the time it seems like it will decide to completely ignore your existing backups and just start all over again creating a brand new initial backup. And how long do you have for me to go on about the various Spotlight annoyances, and how if there's some kind of unexpected shutdown of a system, it decides it has to reindex the entire system again.
I could go on with several more examples, but I think I've pretty well shown that there are reasons to dislike both companies, but also that if you look at the company Microsoft has become after the anti-trust trial, it's almost unrecognizable. Apple is the company bullying everyone now, and being so vertically integrated, they are far more monopolistic than Microsoft could have ever hoped to be.
And none of this does anything to argue against my earlier points that you are just as guilty of supporting this sort of thing as millions of other people out there. You can stick your head wherever the sun doesn't shine as much as you want, put your fingers in your ears and yell "La la la! I can't hear you!" Doesn't change anything. You know this as well as I do, or else you wouldn't have taken offense to my pointing it out. You wanted people to absolve you of your guilt, not remind you of it, so I guess it's too bad for you that admitting there is a problem is the first step to actually resolving it.