Reader Comments

"Microsoft performed a similar shakeup when Windows 2000 veered wildly off track in late 1998. At the time, the company brought in Brian Valentine, another shipment guru, to kick butts and get that product back on schedule. " And the next major Windows release was the highly successful *cough, cough* Windows Me! Woo hoo! "the Windows Division is full of the last vestiges of 'the bad, old Microsoft. This can't happen quickly enough.' " Huh? I thought Everything! Microsoft! Did! Was! Exciting! What is this "bad old Microsoft" of which you speak?

"And the next major Windows release was the highly successful *cough, cough* Windows Me!" And what about XP that was released almost immediately after that? "What is this "bad old Microsoft" of which you speak?" In your own words, "the convicted felons" who should never be given an opportunity to change. That's how things are in your mac utopia vision. And yes, everything that Microsoft does is news. Yesterday, the stock market went down because of their announcement. In fact, apple shares went up thanks to microsoft.

"And yes, everything that Microsoft does is news. Yesterday, the stock market went down because of their announcement. In fact, apple shares went up thanks to microsoft." That's because Microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly controlling everybody's computers, so yes, it's big news when they hold back the computing industry by delaying their operating system for six years. You actually seem to be proud that Microsoft's actions can affect the entire industry so negatively. Were you this proud when two-thirds of the world's computers were rebooting thanks to the RPC exploit? Did you know that thing even affected hospitals and airliners? The even bigger news is all the people switching to Macs in droves: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2006/tc20060322_658188.htm

"In your own words, "the convicted felons" who should never be given an opportunity to change. That's how things are in your mac utopia vision. " Don't put words in my mouth, sharky. I never called them convicted felons. I called them "convicted monopolists", which is true. Microsoft--corporately--has been found by the U.S. Courts to be an illegal monopoly. Therefore, they must operate under a different set of rules than a legally-run business or even a legal monopoly. There's nothing that prohibits a company from being a monopoly, but there are laws against abusing than monopoly power. Those laws are the ones Microsoft ran afoul of. That's not opinion--it's fact. Nor did I say they should not be given an opportunity to change. Nor do I see the world through a "mac utopia vision". I'm a realist. And I'm honest. And--as I've pointed out to you--I'm a PC user as well, and a Microsoft customer, although Windows is not my preferred Operating System for a variety of valid reasons. "And yes, everything that Microsoft does is news. " Where did I say it wasn't? "In fact, apple shares went up thanks to microsoft." That's a good thing, I suppose, although I won't chortle over Microsoft's ills. A successful Microsoft is a good thing--as long as they play by the rules.

Still, Vista will sell more in it first day of release than the entire installed OSX userbase. Laugh it up FanBonch.

"Nor did I say they should not be given an opportunity to change. Nor do I see the world through a "mac utopia vision". I'm a realist. And I'm honest. And--as I've pointed out to you--I'm a PC user as well, and a Microsoft customer, although Windows is not my preferred Operating System for a variety of valid reasons." From your earlier comments, the only conclusions one can draw are: microsoft is a "convicted monopolist", so they have to play by a "different" set of rules. Any lawsuit accusing them of unfair trade is "valid", since they were convicted of that ages ago. That clearly indicates that you don't want the company to be given a chance to change. Bonch, since the 90s, every year a few reports would be published about how microsoft was doomed and how competition would kill it. Each time, microsoft has proved these doomsday prophecists wrong. I'm sure the company is going to survive this latest setback.

The more I think about the impending release of WinVista, the more I realize that if it had been released in 2003 it would have been a compelling OS. Today, Vista is so woefully delayed it becomes more and more irrelevant. By Jan 2007, Vista will likely be an OS that needs to be replaced by June 2007 ... perhaps by MacOS X 10.5.

"Still, Vista will sell more in it first day of release than the entire installed OSX userbase. Laugh it up FanBonch." Ashlee Simpson sells more CDs than concert recordings of Mozart. Your point? That's like saying because McDonald's sells millions more Big Macs per day than health stores sell salads, McDonald's is the better food.

"From your earlier comments, the only conclusions one can draw are: microsoft is a "convicted monopolist", so they have to play by a "different" set of rules. Any lawsuit accusing them of unfair trade is "valid", since they were convicted of that ages ago. That clearly indicates that you don't want the company to be given a chance to change." The bigger question is why you're so eager to take their side after all their cheating behavior in the 90s! "Bonch, since the 90s, every year a few reports would be published about how microsoft was doomed and how competition would kill it. Each time, microsoft has proved these doomsday prophecists wrong. I'm sure the company is going to survive this latest setback." This is just not true. In the 90s, everyone wrote that Microsoft would take over the world. It's 2006, and everything has totally changed now, especially because of Google and the iPod and the six years of nothing from Microsoft. The future is now the web and digital media convergence devices in the home. Now, I know you're biased toward Microsoft, but they've spent six years trying to update Windows XP. This company is dead, and the only reason they're still around is the fact they were a monopoly in the 90s, and so the software relies on them still. But with the web, that is quickly changing. With web usage skyrocketing and Mac market share doubling every year, Windows is on its way out this decade. It's a technology relic with nowhere to go but down.

But, hey, if you guys don't want to see the writing on the wall, have fun waiting until January of next year to finally get an update to Windows XP from 2001. If you want to rely on a company that's so unreliable, be my guest. I don't have to worry about all the crap you guys have to, because I have a Mac. I just get work done. No restarting iexplore.exe, no endless "wizard" dialog boxes, no registries, no "installers" and "uninstallers" for programs (just drag and drop to install...light years ahead of the Windows way), no disk defragging, and so on. Everything about OS X is better, from the window management (Windows uses the goofy parent-child window relationship, which is why apps like Photoshop have that big window with the gray background with little windows inside it like a mini Mac desktop) to the development environment (nothing touches Cocoa....NET is years behind it). You'll convert eventually. You'll get sick of the clunky Microsoft Windows and its now 50+ million line codebase of cruft. I was a Windows fanboi too. I used to do development in C# and followed the Longhorn betas and defended Microsoft on Slashdot. It all changed when I tried a Mac last February and was floored to realize using a Mac feels seven years ahead of where Microsoft is at. Try a Mac for a week and you'll feel the same wayand will cringe at the harshness of Windows when you go back to it. It's a breath of fresh air to not have to hand-hold your computer and diaper it from the Internet with antivirus/antispyware/firewall/etc. crap. Every time I start my Windows PC, there's some thing that needs updating, be it antivirus, or Windows Update, or Ad-Aware, or the Dell system tray software, etc. It's a non-stop barrage that gets in my way. The interface sucks, the infrastructure sucks, the company sucks, the technology sucks. I use a Mac because life is too short. See you in line for a MacBook...

"'Still, Vista will sell more in it first day of release...' ...like saying because McDonald's sells millions more Big Macs per day than health stores sell salads, McDonald's is the better food." For one, Alan never says Windows is better because it sells more. What he says is, despite everything that you guys say, Windows Vista will be successful. Also, don't tell me you're comparing Windows to McDonalds and OS X to some health food store? "This is just not true. In the 90s, everyone wrote that Microsoft would take over the world. It's 2006, and everything has totally changed now, especially because of Google and the iPod and the six years of nothing from Microsoft." No. EAch time Microsoft delays shipment, everyone starts talking about how the Windows era is going to end. Had it not been for iPod, Apple would have probably closed down. "Now, I know you're biased toward Microsoft" I thought that was obvious. I like some of their products and won't hesitate to defend them. Of course, if an argument was made about iPods and other mp3 players, I'd support iPods. "This company is dead, and the only reason they're still around is the fact they were a monopoly in the 90s, and so the software relies on them still. But with the web, that is quickly changing. With web usage skyrocketing and Mac market share doubling every year, Windows is on its way out this decade. It's a technology relic with nowhere to go but down." Tell me that's a joke. It's so amusing, I don't even know how to respond to it.

"You'll convert eventually. You'll get sick of the clunky Microsoft Windows and its now 50+ million line codebase of cruft." Ask Paul. He said he wouldn't have been able to switch even if he was in a different line of business.

Hilarious! Mac users seem to be more concerned with Vista delays than windows users.

FYI, the shakeup in windows 2000 didn't produce ME. And as for mac fans being more concerned about vista delays is because they are used to paying 129 bucks for updgrades....4-5 times in a row.

Anyhow Fanboi, just a couple of things for you to chew over 1. I've used Apple Machines since the IIe (before you were born I suspect). 2. I've supported Apple machines and they caused me more headaches than the whole of my Windows Network (admittedly OS6-OS9 which were truely buggy pieces of s*ite) 3. At least Microsoft had the balls to admit they had screwed up the development of Vista and set about putting it right. They didn't admit defeat and go and skin Unix instead, which for all your bluster is all OSX is. 4. I haven't paid upwards of $600 for the pleasure of owning OSX, Win XP cost me $129. 5. I don't know what you've been doing but I manage to get some work done on my Windows PC, and I don't know what drivel you are spouting, but I know which OS has had the most updates recently. 6. And finally WTF has the iPod got to with Computing, its a bloody music player you idiot, and the only reason Apple are not bankrupt now. Apple maker of niche computers and Boom boxes. Microsoft, convicted monopolists, late with Vista, but they still make some damn fine software and if you cannot get over that fact stop coming here and bugging us with your sad rhetoric.

lotsamystuff said: "And the next major Windows release was the highly successful *cough, cough* Windows Me!" [after Windows 2000] What Valentine took over was the NT line. The next release after Windows 2000 was Windows XP. Me was developed by the 9x team, totally separate. And yes we all know that Me should have never been made. After 2000 and Me were released, the 9x team was absorbed into the NT team and XP was created. Valentine did a good job of handling this absorption and getting XP out the door.

"For one, Alan never says Windows is better because it sells more. What he says is, despite everything that you guys say, Windows Vista will be successful." Oh come on, the implication when someone says "Vista will still sell more!" is that somehow, it doesn't matter if Windows is inferior because more people are using it. I don't see how you could think Vista will be that successful. Businesses are just now migrating to Windows 2000 and XP, and Vista will miss the Christmas PC buying cycle, so most people will have XP for another 2-3 years. Vista will be a passive upgrade as people buy new computers. "No. EAch time Microsoft delays shipment, everyone starts talking about how the Windows era is going to end. Had it not been for iPod, Apple would have probably closed down." No, the iMac in 1998 is what saved Apple. The iPod was a pleasant surprise that really took off in 2003 (or was it 2004?) when iTunes for Windows was released, and people were introduced to the Apple way of doing things. "Hilarious! Mac users seem to be more concerned with Vista delays than windows users." Uh, nobody's "concerned" about it, and you can't cite an example. You're just making this up because you're frustrated that you have to wait even longer for OS X Tiger--whoops, I mean Windows Vista. :) "And as for mac fans being more concerned about vista delays is because they are used to paying 129 bucks for updgrades....4-5 times in a row." Ah, and now it's the tired "$129 for an upgrade" argument, even though Windows XP Professional costs $250. Just because Apple has outpaced Microsoft so greatly that they've put out 4-5 major revisions to OS X in the time it's taken Microsoft to put out one, that's no reason for you to get frustrated. It's nice having an OS that's always kept fresh and up to date. That's Apple for you. They always ship new products yearly, and they always meet their schedules.

"1. I've used Apple Machines since the IIe (before you were born I suspect)." Apple began the PC revolution with the Apple II. "2. I've supported Apple machines and they caused me more headaches than the whole of my Windows Network (admittedly OS6-OS9 which were truely buggy pieces of s*ite)" Yes, I agree. Windows 3.1-ME were buggy pieces of **** too. "3. At least Microsoft had the balls to admit they had screwed up the development of Vista and set about putting it right. They didn't admit defeat and go and skin Unix instead, which for all your bluster is all OSX is." Hahahaha. No, OS X is NeXStep, also known as OpenStep. OpenStep was developed as an operating system framework that could run on any OS. Apple chose the industrial-strength UNIX base of FreeBSD. You know, UNIX--the OS that powers the Internet. "4. I haven't paid upwards of $600 for the pleasure of owning OSX, Win XP cost me $129." Pro edition is $250. "5. I don't know what you've been doing but I manage to get some work done on my Windows PC, and I don't know what drivel you are spouting, but I know which OS has had the most updates recently." That would be Windows, sir. "6. And finally WTF has the iPod got to with Computing, its a bloody music player you idiot, and the only reason Apple are not bankrupt now. Apple maker of niche computers and Boom boxes." No, the iMac kick-started the new Steve Jobs era of Apple, and also influenced a bunch of third-rate PC clones. Also, it's because of the 1998 iMac that everybody has USB support in their PCs. "Microsoft, convicted monopolists, late with Vista, but they still make some damn fine software and if you cannot get over that fact stop coming here and bugging us with your sad rhetoric." By damn fine software, are you talking about Microsoft Antispyware or Clippy the talking paperclip? Perhaps the search dog?

Speaking of recent updates, yet another critical IE hole is out: "Eweek reports on a highly critical MS Internet Explorer hole found by Secunia Research's Andreas Sandblad. The vulnerability is due to the processing of the "createTextRange()" method call applied on a radio button control. From Secunia, "The vulnerability has been confirmed on a fully patched system with Internet Explorer 6.0 and Microsoft Windows XP SP2." The vulnerability has also been confirmed in Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview (January edition) though it could be avoided by turning off Active Scripting, as suggested by Microsoft Security Response Center blog." Looks like IE7 is keeping up IE6's fine tradition of being the world's #1 virus platform. Long live Firefox!

"No. EAch time Microsoft delays shipment, everyone starts talking about how the Windows era is going to end. Had it not been for iPod, Apple would have probably closed down." P.S. This time is different from the other times in that the delays have lasted six years and counting. Something is obviously wrong at Microsoft.

Aaaand, finally... "At least Microsoft had the balls to admit they had screwed up the development of Vista and set about putting it right. They didn't admit defeat and go and skin Unix instead, which for all your bluster is all OSX is." You do know Windows NT is a skinning of VMS, right? And Windows 95 was a skinning of DOS? And what's wrong with OS X being UNIX? UNIX kicks the *** off Windows, hands down.

Ballmer fumbles an interview: http://tinyurl.com/l8oxf

"Oh come on, the implication when someone says "Vista will still sell more!" is that somehow, it doesn't matter if Windows is inferior because more people are using it." No. You guys are the only ones who say Vista is inferior to windows. That's your claim. Most people don't seem to think so. The fact is, irrespective of what Mac fanboys think, pcs sell more. "By damn fine software, are you talking about Microsoft Antispyware or Clippy the talking paperclip? Perhaps the search dog?" Haha. Very funny Didn't know you had a sense of humor too. What about MS Excel, Powerpoint etc.? They suck too? "That's Apple for you. They always ship new products yearly, and they always meet their schedules." That's a money making scheme. Upgrade the OS and get mac fanboys to buy a new mac every year. "No, the iMac kick-started the new Steve Jobs era of Apple, and also influenced a bunch of third-rate PC clones. Also, it's because of the 1998 iMac that everybody has USB support in their PCs." Definitely, sir. Macs rule. Steve Jobs rocks. You guys are great. You are at the next level of human evolution. Now will you cut the crap?

"Patriot..." spews: "The next release after Windows 2000 was Windows XP" Wrong. Here are the release dates: Windows 2000: February 17, 2000 Windows Me: September 14, 2000 Windows XP: October 25, 2001 And don't give me some blather about which development team was responsible for what. The fact is--and this is what I said--the next OS release from Microsoft AFTER Windows 2000 was the abomination known as Windows Me. Check your facts next time. Please.

"No. You guys are the only ones who say Vista is inferior to windows." I'm assuming you meant OS X there. Uh, no, all the tech press and IT admins claim the same as well. So do the security analysts. "That's your claim. Most people don't seem to think so. The fact is, irrespective of what Mac fanboys think, pcs sell more." Ah, again, the tired market share argument. Windows IS AN ILLEGAL MONOPOLY, remember? of course it sells more, because everybody has to use it. Ashlee Simpson sells more CDs than concert recordings of Mozart. McDonald's sells more Big Macs in one day than health food restaurants sell salads. Cancer kills more people than the common cold. More people know the lyrics to the latest crappy rap song than the theory of relativity. Haha. Very funny Didn't know you had a sense of humor too. What about MS Excel, Powerpoint etc.? They suck too? Uh, yes, they do. Keynote kicks Powerpoint's ***. Excel is all right, though it's got a horrible, horrible interface and several bizarre interface issues with charts (and amusingly, these quirks exist in the Mac version too...go Microsoft!). "That's a money making scheme. Upgrade the OS and get mac fanboys to buy a new mac every year." It's a technology-pushing, industry-leading scheme. My OS is always kept modern and fresh and up to date. Yours was last released in 2001. Now there are reports that 60% of Vista will now be rewritten to meet the January deadline. My god. Microsoft is dead.

I really don't want to have to say it but, is Windows *still* an illegal monopoly? Hasn't that been settled? Wasn't that years ago? It certainly hasn't been mentioned as a thing that's in the courts recently... Secondly, I think we all know that Vista is not going to make it out this year. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it's out before summer 2007. Hopefully by then it'll be quite good, rather than the dodgyness that is the current Beta. Eurgh... Finally, OSX... what can I say? I really don't like it other than it's flashiness. I've tried using it for extended periods of time and it just annoys me. That said, different people have different ways of thinking and/or solving problems, so I'm hoping I can get at least one Mac fanboi to admit that there's a personal preference to how people want things to work. For me, Windows "just works". Even if I occasionally install a dodgy piece of software that f***s it up, it's not as if it's really that difficult to re-install it. Yes, I shouldn't have to, but no OS is invincible. I'm not even going to bother mentioning Linux. Of the 7 ditros I have on CD (not counting seperate versions of each distro) not one of them is something I feel I could recommend to a novice user. Maybe in a few years there'll be a distro that's up to standards, but right now there's too much concentration on developing new screensavers and not enough on actually improving the user experience.

"I'm assuming you meant OS X there. Uh, no, all the tech press and IT admins claim the same as well. So do the security analysts." Yes. And that's why many of them use Windows. "More people know the lyrics to the latest crappy rap song than the theory of relativity." Well, more people know the theory of relativity than say, the simplex algorithm. Does that prove anything? "It's a technology-pushing, industry-leading scheme. My OS is always kept modern and fresh and up to date. Yours was last released in 2001." That's why we have service packs, don't we? "My god. Microsoft is dead." Hahahahaha.

Hey in the bright side, when/if Vista comes all our PCs would be old enough that we'll buy a new PC with Vista on it anyway. Ed bott at ZDnet is reprting that the windows division will be slit into 8 parts.

"It's a technology-pushing, industry-leading scheme. My OS is always kept modern and fresh and up to date. Yours was last released in 2001." And you pay $129 everytime. BTW My copy of XP Pro cost me $129 as it was an upgrade FanBoi, don't correct me when you don't know what you are talking about. Lets see OSX 10.0-10.4 hmmm, that has cost you $645 so far, for a skin on top on Unix. Hell that's real value for money isn't it boys. Oh and FanBoi, try Exchange, SQL Server, Sharepoint Server, Office, Windows 2003. Those are quality, enterprise level applications. Something that you and your picture drawing ilk can only dream of. Apple maker of a niche OS and overpriced Boomboxes

Most mac users dislike microsoft products, not because they're buggy or the UI sucks, but because they're made by Microsoft. The reasons they provide are just futile attempts to cover up their prejudice. I've used Office and Windows for years. Heck, I've done all my programming, documenting, etc. in Windows and haven't had 1/10th the problems these people claim to have had.

Lotsamystuff, Windows 2000 and Windows Me were developed separately for completely separate audiences. Yes, Me was released chronologically after 2000. But that doesn't mean that it was a successor to 2000. For example, no one would have migrated from 2000 to Me--that would be a downgrade. Your original comment was about Brian Valentine, implying that his takeover of Windows 2000 resulted in Windows Me. My reply was that he had nothing to do with Me, that his first post-2000 deliverable was XP, and that he did a pretty good job getting XP out the door in time.