It may be an innovative feature within a certain technology which has never been done before. There are plenty of ways to word it of course from all my MS browsing I havnt seen them use "innovation" on anything questionable in Vista. Whereas Apple hypes the spotlight which they stole from MS like there is no tomorrow.
The problem is they don't define which pool of competition they are relating themselves to when they call a feature of a product "innovative." If they said "Innovative among the Windows OS pool!" I would have no problem. If it's already been done, it cannot be innovative in all reference frames, which is what the absence of clarification implies.
Well meaning that anything they've built a new innovative feature upon. For example let's take this.
OSA: Invents a Window
OSB: Invents a moveable Window
OSC: Invents a moveable Window with Double Buffering
OSA has innovation
OSB has innovation for building a new feature within OSA's innovation
OSC has innovation for building a new feature within OSB's innovation
I see what you're saying (I did before too). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but would you mind showing me an example where they've used innovation in this context?
Additionally, innovation is not efficiency or improvment; it represents something that is completed in an entirely different fashion (optimization does not constitute innovation). If Microsoft is willing to prove to everyone that what they're calling innovative is indeed so due to the methodology of their source code (not by showing the actual code, but by explaining the general procedures of its execution), I will fully accept their claims and commend theihr efforts. Until then, though, I will possess an eternal shadow of doubt that their features are truely innovative.
When you have almost 100% market share, it is practically everyone. But that aside I havn't personally seen them advertise anything they didn't
wholly write themselves as innovative. Maybe as new to the OS yes.
No, it isn't "practically" everyone. It's "statistically" the majority by a longshot, but it's definitely not 'practically' everyone. If you take a look at the useage charts, you'll see undeniable existances of Mac and *NIX users. If it's innovative, they must have wrote it themselves. Innovation also implies that it is a totally new way to accomplish something (or something that accomplishes something wholly unexperienced).
Because Google is not in the OS department and Google IS a threat. They are the dominant search engine force right now. Windows invested money in apple to see what everyone is yelling about. They mostly see how it performs under heavy situations and with clustering of many PCs together. I'd think it would be to test their Sync features in Vista. Sort of to see where the other OS fails and what
they can improve upon.
What i meant by not caring for competition. Mac can boast how it thinks it's better than Windows all it wants, in the end MS will just sit back in their HQ and laugh at what a dumbass Jobs is.
I think Microsoft invested money in Apple so they could get more money. Why else would they do it? To me, that seems like they feel some threat from Apple.
