Silicon.com talks about the possible "embarrassment" about OS X, quoting an analyst accusing Apple of "taking the Microsoft route" by "releasing unfinished products that are followed up by service packs."
Comments
I'll spare us the lengthy diatribe and just say the article is complete B.S.!
Funny how everyone LOVES Microsoft when they pre-announce vapor ware to drive others out of the market. They build in/bundle every imaginable utility to again, obviate the need for others in the market.
Microsoft ships products filled with BUGS, thousands of em, and then fixes that with their Service Packs.
So far Mac OS X has not crashed on me after being used heavily since Saturday, put to sleep several times, having the modem drop the connection (ah, gotta love USWest) and using Classic a few times.
So far so good. What product DOESN'T get updated right after release? You have to ship the 1.0 at some point, it will never be "finished" and complete. You simply pick a date and run just like Apple did.
Windows 2000 shipped with 63000 bugs and 30 million lines of code. OS X does everything W2K does-- and better-- in only 3 million lines of code. Apple had to have a 1.0 version out to demonstrate that they are not in the business of "vaporware" They needed to have a 1.0 version for the worldwide developer conference in may. They clearly WANT to have a cleaner version ready for MacWorld NY and for the upcoming school year in september. I don't see any of OS X's bugs as being show stoppers. At least they delivered something that Microsoft will probably NEVER deliver: a stable OS with TRUE memory protection and TRUE preemptive multitasking-- not the approximations you see in NT.
Well, if Apple is trying to be like Microsoft, releasing unfinished software and patching it with service packs, maybe they've realized something. After all, it's been a great strategy for Bill.
I don't have a problem with service pack's
I hope you don't have to reapply 'm , like NT , every time you look at your monitor.
A version update like in MacOS is fine thank you
The difference between Microsoft Service Packs and Apple upgrades is the Apple upgrades are free were as the Microsoft Service Packs are not-enough said.
Apple is doing exactly the opposite of Microsoft, and any nearsighted 3-toed tree sloth can see it. Apple has decided to not ship features that are not ready. Microsoft routinely ships features in pre-alpha quality - heck that's its business model. If Microsoft had waited for release-quality (though not perfect) reliability, Windows 2000 would have been the first version of Win32 to ship. Note to tech journalists: Doing the opposite of Microsoft is not "taking the Microsoft route." Duh.
I read through the article, and it was pretty clear the author had a bias against Apple. But the real kicker was the "related articles" at the bottom of the screen, which read:
- Apple unveils redesigned iMac: A dog of a machine
- Apple falls from grace with first loss in three years
- Apple has problems - so what's new?
Gee, you think the site has an anti-Apple bias?
MS Service packs are free.
The "63,000 bugs" includes all pending feature requests and style gotchas, so it is hardly an indicator of real bugs.
Windows 2000 shipped with support for all major hardware, including CD-RW.
Just clearing some things up. Mac OS X won't be "real" until July 2001. Microsoft has sold beta versions of their software, but they've never sold a 1.0 full release lacking this many features.
OR
Network Headlines
Most Popular
MacNN Sponsor
Recent Reviews
Logitech FabricSkin Keyboard Folio for iPad
Since the fourth-generation iPad didn't evolve much over its predecessor, the market for iPad accessories has remained somewhat static ...
Huawei Ascend Mate
The Huawei Ascend Mate is a phone that fits the screen-size gap between the 4 to 5-inch smartphone and the seven-inch or more tablet, ...
MaxUpgrades MaxConnect for 2006-2008 Mac Pro
Nobody outside of Cupertino's privileged bunch knows the future of the Mac Pro line for sure. Despite Apple's reluctance to tell us wh ...
Most Commented
Popular News
Joined:
Bogus analysts.
Have these analysts actually used OS X? I know I have it and it incredible. Sure there are some slight rough edges and Microsoft Internet Explorer blows, but as a whole from my experience OS X is truly an incredible experience and is now my main OS. I'm sick of reading these analyst reports that OS X is doomed and Apple has botched this. Yes, maybe there should be support for CD-RW burning and playing DVDs, but it will come. The analyst are missing the point on this. Apple is not Microsuck and should not ever be compared to them. Apple is the only company that can claim to create the complete solution for a user, hardware, OS and software. Miscosoft uses its strong-arm tacticts on developers and PC manufacturers. Either put out or get out. Apple had to ship this OS now to get the developers off of their asses to produce software. Otherwise let's say they waited till July when the systems come shipped with OS X pre-installed on them, it would be until December-Januwary before software would roll out for it. Besides, in my tests Photoshop that ran in classic mode ran much better in OS X than under 9.1. All the software running under classic mode ran flawlessly and better than it is under OS 9. This made me happy and excited because in the Public Beta classic just was not there at all and just sucked.
OS X is incredible and we should never listen to analysts. They promote doom and gloom all of the time. What do they know about technology? Do they ever use the things that they are analysing for the financial market?
In closing, try OS X and you will find that it is not what they say and is so much more than words can describe. I think it will become your main OS. It did for me.
-ikram