Snow Leopard and Windows 7: Two Flavors of the Same GUI
It used to be that the Mac was different. Nothing like it, in commercial form, existed before it did for a few years it was the only GUI-game in town. Then Windows came along and we all laughed heartily. It was so ugly! It was so buggy! It was....ridiculous compared to the glory that was OS 8. Then Windows 98 came along, and we still chuckled. Windows NT.....a little more stable, but oh so ugly. Windows XP, even more stable, and sort of looking like our Macs but whatever, it was inferior. Never mind that the majority of the world was running on it. And now Vista, the butt of our greatest jokes. Apple has a fantastic ad campaign about it. Vista is a bloated, odd, incalcitrant little pig of an operating system compared to our elegant, functional, and powerful OS X. It may have taken Microsoft 20 odd years to figure this one out but there is some pretty big news on the horizon. Of course the market-share battle is lost for Apple, although it continues to chip away here and there. But the innovation-share battle continues. And the big big big news: Windows 7 Doesn't Really Suck I've been testing out the RC candidate using fusion for a week or so now and even went so far as to blow away my Hackintosh to see how it ran on a low-end NetBook. And while technophiles may note that the essential underpinnings of Windows 7 are not that different to Vista Windows 7 feels a world apart from Vista. Some would call it polish, other would call it (god forbid we use this word with Microsoft) good design, but whatever it is Windows 7 doesn't clearly suck the way Vista does. How does it not suck? The install is quick, the GUI refined in appropriate ways, the operating system responds more quickly, the dock is more refined and arguably more usable and elegant than the Mac OS X dock. Now don't get me wrong, it is still Windows. It still feels Microsofty but the point is Microsoft seems to be on the verge of releasing a major upgrade to their operating system that doesn't suck. So where does that leave Apple? Unless Apple is hiding something very very very big with Snow Leopard Apple is about to lose the high-ground (and bullying rights) when it comes to its operating system. The blunders of Vista were easy to pick at, picking on Windows 7 will be nitpicking at best, stupidity at worst. For all intents and purposes Snow Leopard and Windows 7 are two flavors of the same GUI. Apple can continue to tout its ability to control the entire experience with its control over hardware and software but this argument will only go so far. Which leads me to a thought for another article, has Apple ostensibly given up on the Mac and is it focussing all its innovation energy in the iPhone? The iPhone is like the original Macintosh, it is light years ahead of anything before it and introduced a new paradigm to a commercial shipping product--a touch screen portable interface. Indeed, from a shareholder standpoint it could be easily argued that the right thing, the essential thing for Apple to do is to let the Mac be. Update the OS every now and again, market the heck out of it (even continuing to insult Microsoft) but just let the damn thing be. In the next few months Apple will lose the high-ground when it comes to desktop operating systems. All the rest is marketing.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Idon’t know, Greg Alexander, if Apple will lower its standard price. It depends on how quickly Apple wants Snow Leopard to be adopted. I don’t expect ithat to happen, though.
What I’d like to see is a bundle such as they had for iLife and iWorks with Leopard 10.5. If that was for a couple hundred dollars including Snow Leopard, I’d bite.
I think that my greatest frustration stems for what looks a lot to me like irrational behavior on the part of consumers in general when it comes to choosing an operating system.
Most people don’t choose at all. The people who do choose don’t really evaluate objectively what they’re choosing. It’s mostly based on what they’re used to or recommendations from a trusted (at least trusted by them) source.
I use both OSX and Windows in various incarnations daily. I’m currently toying with Windows 7 RC and it seems fine. But just installing and firing up a computer makes up a fraction of what I would define as the total user experience. How you interact with a computer includes maintenance and troubleshooting among other things. I know the car analogy doesn’t hold water for every instance, I think it’s useful from the standpoint of how most people look at their computers.
If we take an OSX machine and turn it on and connect it to the internet, you can run the machine essentially for the life of the machine and it will just go. If you install any Windows OS on a machine of your choosing without security software, eventually, no matter how careful you are, you will eventually end up with a non-operating system.
I actually like the fact that MS is refining their product because it prevents any of the players from sitting on their laurels. But until Windows is redesigned so that it is “built securely by design”, I can’t really imagine that I will prefer the experience of using it because I just don’t like looking over my shoulder all the time. Sure tons of bad guys target Windows and sure you can hack OSX or linux if you put the time in. But the essential concept that once you get past the periphery of Windows security be it built in security or hardened by third party software, the system is vulnerable by design.
If the consequences of running a vulnerable computer were the same as driving a car or flying in a plane that was bound to malfunction, I wonder how many people would think harder about the computer OS they use. A pretty vehicle that risks my life wouldn’t be at the top of my shopping list.
Sean M said:
“I think that my greatest frustration stems for what looks a lot to me like irrational behavior on the part of consumers in general when it comes to choosing an operating system.
Most people don’t choose at all. “
That is because most people don’t know they have a choice. Wintel won its ubiquity, not on any technical superiority, but through cheap hardware and software which was “good enough.” People bought IBM compatible computers because of the DOS machine they had at the office. Windows was nothing more than a cheap copy of the original Mac OS.
Microsoft entered a partnership with IBM to produce OS/2. Then, after it got its competitors to heavily invest in applications for OS/2, MS sabotaged OS/2 and its parleyed its control of Windows 95 and MS office into a monopoly. But, that monopoly is starting to break down.
People are being offered a choice through Microsoft’s incompetence and Apple’s practice of constantly pushing the envelope. Microsoft is increasingly being pushed into its niche of the Enterprise and government, low end consumer and gaming markets. Those markets are huge niches, so Microsoft is making money, but Apple sells the most in the high end consumer market.
Microsoft’s market share is illusionary. As much as a third of its market share are computers which are used for cash registers, displays and front ends for mainframes. That market is saturated and the equipment is nearing the end of its life. Cheap Linux based machines are likely to replace them. Software as a service will undercut MS office. Neither of those will affect Apple’s customers. They need real computers.
“The people who do choose don’t really evaluate objectively what they’re choosing. It’s mostly based on what they’re used to or recommendations from a trusted (at least trusted by them) source.”
Sure, and the Wintel community has its FUD machine to keep people on the plantation. MS’s ads promote that purchase price is the only criteria in choosing a computer.
“I use both OSX and Windows in various incarnations daily. I’m currently toying with Windows 7 RC and it seems fine. But just installing and firing up a computer makes up a fraction of what I would define as the total user experience. How you interact with a computer includes maintenance and troubleshooting among other things. I know the car analogy doesn’t hold water for every instance, I think it’s useful from the standpoint of how most people look at their computers.
If we take an OSX machine and turn it on and connect it to the internet, you can run the machine essentially for the life of the machine and it will just go. If you install any Windows OS on a machine of your choosing without security software, eventually, no matter how careful you are, you will eventually end up with a non-operating system.”
There are technical reasons to choose Apple. Snow leopard will expand those reasons. While Vista has improved and Windows 7 should be better and faster, Windows biggest problem is that it isn’t a real operating system—like UNIX. It is a standalone system which can’t take any punch which gets past its periphery. This is why any vulnerability hurts Microsoft Windows so much while the Mac just shrugs it off.
http://rixstep.com/2/20090601,00.shtml
Eventually, Microsoft’s propaganda machine will be unable to keep the word of Windows inferiority from the public.
“I actually like the fact that MS is refining their product because it prevents any of the players from sitting on their laurels. But until Windows is redesigned so that it is “built securely by design”, I can’t really imagine that I will prefer the experience of using it because I just don’t like looking over my shoulder all the time. Sure tons of bad guys target Windows and sure you can hack OSX or linux if you put the time in. But the essential concept that once you get past the periphery of Windows security be it built in security or hardened by third party software, the system is vulnerable by design.”
Microsoft has an almost impossible problem; one that is of its own making. That is because Windows is a stand alone system which was never designed to withstand the rigors of the internet. Windows desperately needs new Multi User foundations, but it can’t get them without starting anew like Apple did with Mac OSX. There is no equivalent to NeXT’s Openstep in the world today.
I expect Microsoft will never take a chance on losing its legacy users. So, Windows will remain a technical mess. There will be no grand rush to Apple and Linux, because the markets are so entrenched. Windows will just fade away over the decades; nibbled to death by Apple at the top end and Linux at the bottom. New computing systems will be developed which bypass Microsoft, because MS Windows is too antiquated to take advantage of them.
The Computer-on-a-chip will get fast and cheap enough to be placed most peripherals. Thus, a computer will increasingly look like a LAN of many specialized computers in a home or office. Apple will be able to take advantage of that; while Microsoft will not. Apple has been moving in this direction for decades, while Microsoft has been entrenching its hold on the Enterprise markets.
“If the consequences of running a vulnerable computer were the same as driving a car or flying in a plane that was bound to malfunction, I wonder how many people would think harder about the computer OS they use. A pretty vehicle that risks my life wouldn’t be at the top of my shopping list.”
Most people don’t even know that alternatives exist. They think that the problems they experience are a part of computing, rather than a result of using Microsoft Windows. They are slowly waking up in the consumer markets, but in Enterprise, the IT department chooses your computer for you. Their bread and butter is in servicing Microsoft Windows. Why should they change? They are putting pressure on Microsoft not to change, so Windows becomes increasingly antiquated. This is very good for Apple and Linux.
You know Urban Bard I think you are exactly right.
I’ve been testing Windows 7 since the beta and, yes, it doesn’t suck as Vista does, but it still sucks. Still being hard to use, buggy and unreliable. Microsoft has a lot to do before bothering Apple and MacOS X, in my opinion.
When Windows 95 came out, it was a poor copy of Mac OS8 regardless of what the judge said in a famous copy-write infringement case that went against Apple. Every iteration of WIndows has incorporated some features copied directly from the Mac. A vista version of Dashboard and Spotlight, and a Win 7 version of the dock. If Apple does it, then Microsoft will copy it within a couple of years. However, like some bad horror movie the MS clone version will always be uglier and clunky compared to the Apple original version. Consider the iPod and the Zune. When you are number one, you can pedal anything to the masses. There has never been an IT manager who was fired for buying Dell hardware and Microsoft Office running on Windows.
Urban Bard I almost put in that link from Rixstep but really my frustration is with people who’s eyes would glaze over if I showed it to them. I know that unix like systems are technically superior but as a call center employee for a windows only product (I know, lucky me) the more people you talk to, the more you realize that the road to breaking down the years of FUD will be an arduous journey. The relationship with Microsoft and their perpetually crippled versions of Office, no Outlook, Access, etc is part of the problem.
But I think that the greatest hurdle is sheer human resistance to change. People will literally continue a behavior indefinitely until some fear greater than change comes along. Sure there are people who look at technical considerations and graceful solutions and change but the majority don’t. Why do you think marketing teams use FUD? THAT’s what bugs me.
Perceptions are funny, Sean M; it usually requires a crisis event to change the kind of entrenched bigotry which favors Microsoft. Those crisis’ are coming, but it is unclear how they will play out. This will take the next five to ten years. Ten years ago, Apple was beleaguered. Ten years from now, Microsoft may be.
The odds are against Microsoft curing Window’s problems with its foundations . That would require that MS go through the development hell that Apple went through for seven years with Mac OSX. MS Windows would lose most of its applications, so I doubt that MS would do that. But, If it doesn’t do it, MS consigns itself to obsolescence.
One thing that might help Windows is a hypervisor such as Intel has been working on (vPro.)
In vPro, Windows would be confined in a hardware sandbox. A hypervisor in its own partition, and unconnected to the outside world, would constantly check to see if Windows has been corrupted and fix it. It would control Windows ability to do anything with ports, disks and memory. But, that imposes a hardware and physical cost which may not pay for itself. Protecting Windows from its vulnerabilities will jack up Wintel’s cost in comparison with Apple. And it might be slow, slow, slow.
If the IT departments aren’t willing to pay more for this technology then the old game continues. If a technical improvement doesn’t intervene, then Windows malware and virus problems will increase as ever stronger competition tries to bring Windows down. The original Apple antivirus advertisement, several years ago, said that there were 114, 000 Windows virus in the wild. Now, that number is over 200, 000. Where does it end?
This problem is occurring when hardware prices are declining sufficiently that MS Windows is becoming an ever higher percentage of a new computer. If MS wants to be on a $100 OLPC computer and Windows basic costs $50, then MS’s options are severely limited. If MS lowers its price for its basic OS, then it loses revenue. If it doesn’t lower its price, then Linux replaces it.
I expect that technical improvements will undercut Microsoft. If computers explode the way I think it will by having all its peripherals become separate computers, then this favors Apple and Linux.
It will be rather nice to have all your wireless peripherals instantly recognize each other, integrate flawlessly and transparently work together. Much has to be worked out and I do not, yet, see how the parts will interoperate. The low price of the parts will push this.
It would be convenient to take your keyboard from room to room and have the nearest monitor, which had been looking like a picture, start responding to your input. The wireless monitors will get so cheap that you might have four to six in your home.
Many household conveniences will become easy and cheap to control. You plug them in and they just work. Your lights should turn on when you walk into a room. Your computer should take inputs from your oven on when to turn over the roast. It should inform you through your iPhone even if you are on your way to the corner store.
Your refrigerator should tell you when you have run out of milk or inform you on which items are so old that you should throw them out. You should be able to check on how much time is necessary before your wash cycle ends.
The half dozen security cameras you have situated around the house need a place to store its data, so you would need a mass storage devise. Your home server would download your programs for you automatically. All this should be at the same price that you pay for a computer now.
Your Operating System would have to control all that and more. The OS is not going away, but it should remain in the background and let you do your work.
Will MS be ready to do all that? I don’t think so. MS is still stuck on the desktop where it was ten years ago. It hasn’t put its money into future developments while it has been defending its niches.
What Apple and Linux will be doing is expanding the computer marketplace, so poor Microsoft will be left behind. There is little reason for Apple to attack Microsoft directly. Let Microsoft keep its niches while Apple and Linux concentrates on the future.
Apple and Linux will serve different needs, and support each other, so they don’t have to be at odds. Apple should be the interface to the user while Linux is in the lower level devises. But, there should be constant movement around the periphery of each Operating System.
Every gain by Apple and Linux will seem like it is out of Microsoft’s hide. It is the perception of Microsoft’s monopoly which gives it power. But its marketshare will decline. Sometime in the future, people will wake up. Most of this marketshare change will be from embedded Linux devises which act as cash registers, displays and front end for mainframes. After the perceptions change, more people will be willing to give Apple a chance.
Charles Miller (one of the pwn2own winners this year, former CIA, foremost Mac OS X security expert in the world, and self-avowed regular Mac user): “With my Safari exploit, I put the code into a process and I know exactly where it’s going to be. There’s no randomization. I know when I jump there, the code is there and I can execute it there. On Windows, the code might show up but I don’t know where it is. Even if I get to the code, it’s not executable. Those are two hurdles that Macs don’t have.” (http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941)
The fact of the matter is, NO, in the estimation of the top security experts in the field, Macs are not more secure than the latest flavors of Windows. In fact, security experts are ironically ridiculing Windows for making the most secure consumer-level operating system ever (Vista), and still having it be perceived as fundamentally insecure.
The fact of the matter is, Macs are safer, because they represent a minuscule portion of the global market share, but not more secure. The same reasons we love Macs, the quick and powerful access to the raw power of the OS, are the reasons why it is easy for people who want to take the time to exploit program flaws. Leopard introduced address randomization, for example, but implemented it so poorly that it might as well not have been included.
Don’t pull the wool over your eyes. Windows 7, frankly, is a good looking and functional version of the Windows experience, the best yet; actually, it looks a lot better than the hodgepodge of Aqua/Cocoa/Carbon elements in Mac OS X right now. Its main shortcomings are no longer bugs, but differences in OS design philosophy that have always existed between Mac and Windows machines, such as no native disk image support or the application install model. These things will keep Apple’s base market of creative professionals who want ease and power in the same package loyal and growing, as long as Apple doesn’t continue to bend over backwards to capture the “i have no idea what I’m doing, which computer is for me” crowd.
However, in terms of usability and stability, the gap is becoming smaller. as Microsoft learns from Apple’s success with window management, launch bar innovation, live search, etc., and Apple needs to keep innovating if they want to continue their momentum.
Right now, aside from the philosophy differences between the OS’s, what Mac users have going for them over Windows users is a community of Apple product fans who perpetuate a culture of free, easy to understand, well-organized, well-presented tech support material and open source capability extension to the OS. In a way, Apple’s loyal user base has become its killer app, a community of people dedicated to extending Apple’s ease-of-use philosophy to the way they interact with others. If Apple continues to deride Microsoft for their improvements (while Microsoft increasingly makes the shift towards learning from their mistakes and Apples successes) and cater to the non-technical side of their user base, they risk punching holes in this phenomenon.
The fact of the matter is that any OS feature that works well can and will be analyzed and integrated by an agile competitor, which is what Microsoft has once more become. If Apple wants to maintain their momentum, they need to continue to innovate now, before Microsoft’s sea change allows them to gain a foothold of their own in what was once Apple’s strongest unassailable asset: the loyal, knowledgeable user.
That said, Mac OS X still clearly has the best ratio of power, simplicity, and stability, and there’s no way in hell I’m switching :D But I don’t mind dual booting to play games so much anymore, now that there’s a photocopy of the Dock at the bottom of the screen. Feels like home away from home. HA
Believe what you want to believe, wbruce. MS Windows has some serious security problems, which I see no signs of being corrected.
The problem with Windows security is that MS Windows has no internal security. Rixstep compares it to a submarine with no internal bulkheads. Once the exterior is breached, the game is over. The Mac OS is UNIX 3.0 compliant, so it has a fine internal security which prevents any flaw in its periphery from becoming a problem. That is why Apple doesn’t panic when a vulnerability is found. Those vulnerabilities are never exploited, unlike with Windows.
If you insist on talk about unreleased software such as Windows Seven or Snow leopard, then you need to know some things.
MS is doing a fine job of guarding its periphery, with techniques such as address randomization. It is a little bit ahead of Apple in this area, but it won’t be when Snow leopard is released.
I strongly suggest that you look at the following web page, rather than argue with me about it.
http://rixstep.com/2/20090601,00.shtml
Snow Leopard will have all the techniques which Windows Seven has, plus it will have a 64 bit kernel, so it has a wider address space to hide its operating files. All the deficiencies which Mr Miller complains about will be corrected in September. 90% of the Mac Applications will be 64 bit within the next year.
Why don’t we readdress this issue, when both Snow Leopard and Windows Seven are released?
“Its main shortcomings are no longer bugs, but differences in OS design philosophy that have always existed between Mac and Windows machines, such as no native disk image support or the application install model. “
I haven’t a clue as to what you mean by a “native disk image.” The Macs have disk images.
Are you speaking of Ngen.exe? What benefit does that provide you? It seemed like a big ho-hum when I read about that; just another MS proprietary application.
The best application install model is drag and drop. Adding and removing an application from your disk drive should be as easy as installing and removing a file. Both the Classic MacOS and Windows uses a botched install method. This was because pieces of the application were put all over the disk drive. The Classic MacOS had its extensions and Windows has it’s Dll’s. Both are obsolete technology.
Drag and dropping Applications was implemented in Nextstep. But, Mac OSX requires an installer for the Carbon API based Applications. Carbon will be gone in five years, so all apps, especially the 64 bit apps, will be drag and drop.