Vista really fails to deliver?

[Newby]

I mean, if this guy can replace the video feed of a feature preview of Vista with that of an OS X desktop, Vista really really fails to live up to its hype.

Or they're hyping features that aren't innovative.

[Towelie]

Wow, now I really don't want vista... even though I didnt want it earlier

[MyndFyre]

Or they're hyping features that aren't innovative.

I think it still depends on how you define "innovative."  These are features Windows users have not been able to use before, because they've been locked up in a Mac.  And, as much as I like using the occasional Mac at school, it pisses me off to no end that they still do not have a fucking second mouse button.  WTF STEVE JOBS?!?

The point is, all of the features of Vista will be new and fresh to 90% of the Windows userbase.  That's what matters.

(Oh: and Mac OS X is still not available as a standalone OS for non-Mac PCs).

[Warrior]

Maybe MS having it patented .

Additionally this video is a load of crap, theres only so much ways to design an effective application and from their predecessors I'd say it's a step up.
Mac can also rip a shitload of things off of others but their motto is "We invented it first, no matter what". Until you patent that specific style of form design it doesn't belong to you, sorry.

I stopped watching that video after I saw them comparing MacOS X Widgets to Vista Widgets. However just to be informed I rewatched it to be equally displeased. If anything this is more of a troll trying to get his 5 minutes of fame. Tool.

[Eric]

Mac can also rip a shitload of things off of others but their motto is "We invented it first, no matter what".

Couldn't you say the same about Microsoft?

[Warrior]

Yep, however it's the atitude they take torwards it. You don't see Windows shoving it in Mac's face about who invented certain technologies they use. Mac really can't compete with groundbreaking features and speed Vista has compared to Tiger so they use the "We had it first, even though we do it worse we had it" bit. It's annoying and mac users generally are uneducated stuck of retards.

[Newby]

Additionally this video is a load of crap, theres only so much ways to design an effective application and from their predecessors I'd say it's a step up.
Mac can also rip a shitload of things off of others but their motto is "We invented it first, no matter what". Until you patent that specific style of form design it doesn't belong to you, sorry.

I stopped watching that video after I saw them comparing MacOS X Widgets to Vista Widgets. However just to be informed I rewatched it to be equally displeased. If anything this is more of a troll trying to get his 5 minutes of fame. Tool.

How is it a step up? It's the same feature for the most part. It's just in a Windows OS now. Congrats. From the video, it would appear it's catch-up the whole time.

And elaborate how the video is just a troll trying to get his 5 minutes of fame. I enjoyed the video and found that the features they talked about were already in the OS X environment.

[Warrior]

If you'd use OSX and if you'd use Vista  then you'd see the undeniable difference in performance and implementation. The main strength being Widgets. Plain and simple Widgets on MacOSX suck. Widgets on Windows are going to be huge.

Another feature is the Photogallery, Callender, and DVD Maker. From using apple's DVD maker personally I can tell that the one in Vista is richer in functionality. They seem to be just judging the book by it's cover in this case.

Mac includes some innovative things but goes about them all wrong, their implementation is nothing compared to how it's done in Windows.

Additionally, all of this ties in to Mac trying desperately to compete with Vista. If they were THAT FAR AHEAD of Vista why would they have to resort to saying "We've had that" when they can just release some new ground breaking feature? They fact of the matter is, while they have some small percent of marketshare they still dont have the resources to perform such drastic changes needed to topple Vista.

This is just another Mac zealot blowing off steam because his favorite OS is about to get crushed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Seriously, this entire thing is just a big troll. I mean they showed a Windows BSOD for christs sake. Isn't this supposed to  be feature comparison?

Wait..maybe they are claiming they had BSODs first? Not unlikely since they use the Mach kernel. *lol*

Open your eyes some, this entire Video is a joke. If you want to see the real flaws in Vista then go to winsupersite.com and read the Vista review part 5 which focuses on such things.

There is also compelling evidence that Windows has had features Mac claimed they stole..or wasn't Longhorn WAY under development during PDC03? Is it not possible there was some note taking by Mac enthusiasts there? smh

Fixed bold.

[Newby]

If you'd use OSX and if you'd use Vista  then you'd see the undeniable difference in performance and implementation. The main strength being Widgets. Plain and simple Widgets on MacOSX suck. Widgets on Windows are going to be huge.

They're (M$ is) saying it's new. The idea of it is not. Maybe the implentation is different, but the idea is what makes something innovative.

Another feature is the Photogallery, Callender, and DVD Maker. From using apple's DVD maker personally I can tell that the one in Vista is richer in functionality. They seem to be just judging the book by it's cover in this case.

Aha, look at that. Another feature that M$ improves on.

Mac includes some innovative things but goes about them all wrong, their implementation is nothing compared to how it's done in Windows.

So the implementation is what they're innovating on? Ah. Maybe they should say that instead of saying "omg new feature". "Omg old feature we've improved on" would be more correct.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be false advertising? I think I'll sue and make some $$.

Additionally, all of this ties in to Mac trying desperately to compete with Vista. If they were THAT FAR AHEAD of Vista why would they have to resort to saying "We've had that" when they can just release some new ground breaking feature? They fact of the matter is, while they have some small percent of marketshare they still dont have the resources to perform such drastic changes needed to topple Vista.

Nice connection. How does it make them appear to be competing with Vista?

They are resorting to "we had that" to prove that M$ claims to be innovating new ideas, when all they're doing is implementing them differently.

This is just another Mac zealot blowing off steam because his favorite OS is about to get crushed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Seriously, this entire thing is just a big troll. I mean they showed a Windows BSOD for christs sake. Isn't this supposed to  be feature comparison?

Stop taking cheap shots at the video and criticize it constructively. Leave this stupid shit out. Weren't you the one that hated people that ran their mouth? You're doing it now.

Open your eyes some, this entire Video is a joke. If you want to see the real flaws in Vista then go to winsupersite.com and read the Vista review part 5 which focuses on such things.

The video wasn't mean to point out flaws. If you think it was, then yes, I guess I can see how you think the video is a joke.

It was meant to point out the "innovative" features that M$ promotes aren't truly innovative.

There is also compelling evidence that Windows has had features Mac claimed they stole..or wasn't Longhorn WAY under development during PDC03? Is it not possible there was some note taking by Mac enthusiasts there? smh

Mac never claimed they stole ideas. Mac simply said these features promoted aren't anything new.

[Warrior]

If you'd use OSX and if you'd use Vista  then you'd see the undeniable difference in performance and implementation. The main strength being Widgets. Plain and simple Widgets on MacOSX suck. Widgets on Windows are going to be huge.

They're (M$ is) saying it's new. The idea of it is not. Maybe the implentation is different, but the idea is what makes something innovative.

Where do they claim it's new? They list it as a Vista feature but never say it's new. If they did anywhere I'd be willing to guess they mean New to Windows which then would  be correct.

Another feature is the Photogallery, Callender, and DVD Maker. From using apple's DVD maker personally I can tell that the one in Vista is richer in functionality. They seem to be just judging the book by it's cover in this case.

Aha, look at that. Another feature that M$ improves on.

Either that went over your head or you purposely dodged the point.

Mac includes some innovative things but goes about them all wrong, their implementation is nothing compared to how it's done in Windows.

So the implementation is what they're innovating on? Ah. Maybe they should say that instead of saying "omg new feature". "Omg old feature we've improved on" would be more correct.

I still havn't seen where they claim it to be a new feature. Even so it is a new feature in the sense that no OS has had it implemented in that way before. Additionally Konflabulator has had this bull way before Tiger.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be false advertising? I think I'll sue and make some $$.

You're wrong.

Additionally, all of this ties in to Mac trying desperately to compete with Vista. If they were THAT FAR AHEAD of Vista why would they have to resort to saying "We've had that" when they can just release some new ground breaking feature? They fact of the matter is, while they have some small percent of marketshare they still dont have the resources to perform such drastic changes needed to topple Vista.

Nice connection. How does it make them appear to be competing with Vista?

Because they are running out of good ideas to compete with the monster than is Vista. They can try and try in the end they just resort to
childish accusations.

They are resorting to "we had that" to prove that M$ claims to be innovating new ideas, when all they're doing is implementing them differently.

Implementing them better. For example, the processor is an old peice of hardware. Every time it's improved it's advertised. Wouldn't that be the same thing? They are doing it better therefore they have the right to advertise it as such.

This is just another Mac zealot blowing off steam because his favorite OS is about to get crushed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Seriously, this entire thing is just a big troll. I mean they showed a Windows BSOD for christs sake. Isn't this supposed to  be feature comparison?

Stop taking cheap shots at the video and criticize it constructively. Leave this stupid shit out. Weren't you the one that hated people that ran their mouth? You're doing it now.

I'm attacking why I think it's nonsense. You asked. Another example would be someone swearing while arguing. They lose credibility right?
Well it's stupid things like this that makes that video lose credibility.

Open your eyes some, this entire Video is a joke. If you want to see the real flaws in Vista then go to winsupersite.com and read the Vista review part 5 which focuses on such things.

The video wasn't mean to point out flaws. If you think it was, then yes, I guess I can see how you think the video is a joke.

It was meant to point out the "innovative" features that M$ promotes aren't truly innovative.

Wouldn't this be a flaw then?

There is also compelling evidence that Windows has had features Mac claimed they stole..or wasn't Longhorn WAY under development during PDC03? Is it not possible there was some note taking by Mac enthusiasts there? smh

Mac never claimed they stole ideas. Mac simply said these features promoted aren't anything new.

..thus they stole ideas? If something has been done before you stole the idea. Mac is mad because it's coming back to bite them.

[Sidoh]

This argument has been had before.  Something isn't innovative if it's been done before.  Something that is innovative implies that it has never been done before in any way, shape or form.  Implied reference frames are invalid and should be pointed out.  If they're going to say something is innovative, but mean that it's only innovative to the Windows family, they should say so.  Not doing this would make the satement "Feature X is innovative" false.

[Warrior]

This argument has been had before.  Something isn't innovative if it's been done before.

What if the new method in which it's done in itself is innovative? Theres other things to consider here.
That exact method has never been before done in any way shape or form.

Of course I think you'd be hard pressed to find where windows calls anything they havnt specifically invented innovative.
They call them "new" features which is true since they are new to the OS.
There simply is no way around this.

I also think I've stated they could care less for competition and what they innovate is on them. When you own 90+% of the market
I don't think you take anyone else into consideration. Of course that's just my thinking, they may for some strange reason think otherwise.

[Sidoh]

What if the new method in which it's done in itself is innovative? Theres other things to consider here.
That exact method has never been before done in any way shape or form.

That depends on how they word it.  If they say it's "an innovative feature," they're wrong if it has been done before.  If they say "an innovative new way of doing X," they could be right.  No one knows unless they've seen source to prove otherwise.

I think we both know for a fact Microsoft has, at best, used the word out of context on numerous occasions.

Of course I think you'd be hard pressed to find where windows calls anything they havnt specifically invented innovative.

If it has been invented before its implementation, it is not innovative.  That is a direct contradiction to innovation.

They call them "new" features which is true since they are new to the OS.
There simply is no way around this.

Sure, it's great to call them "new" features, but they are not innovative.  Innovation implies that the item in reference is new to everyone in the world.

I also think I've stated they could care less for competition and what they innovate is on them. When you own 90+% of the market I don't think you take anyone else into consideration. Of course that's just my thinking, they may for some strange reason think otherwise.

If they don't take anything else into consideration, why did Balmer throw a chair accross the room when he was told their CSO was quitting to take a job at Google?  Why have they invested vast amounts of money in Apple?

[Warrior]

What if the new method in which it's done in itself is innovative? Theres other things to consider here.
That exact method has never been before done in any way shape or form.

That depends on how they word it.  If they say it's "an innovative feature," they're wrong if it has been done before.  If they say "an innovative new way of doing X," they could be right.  No one knows unless they've seen source to prove otherwise.

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.

Of course I think you'd be hard pressed to find where windows calls anything they havnt specifically invented innovative.

If it has been invented before its implementation, it is not innovative.  That is a direct contradiction to innovation.

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

They call them "new" features which is true since they are new to the OS.
There simply is no way around this.

Sure, it's great to call them "new" features, but they are not innovative.  Innovation implies that the item in reference is new to everyone in the world.

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.

I also think I've stated they could care less for competition and what they innovate is on them. When you own 90+% of the market I don't think you take anyone else into consideration. Of course that's just my thinking, they may for some strange reason think otherwise.

If they don't take anything else into consideration, why did Balmer throw a chair accross the room when he was told their CSO was quitting to take a job at Google?  Why have they invested vast amounts of money in Apple?

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.

[Blaze]

It doesn't matter if Mac did it first, what matters is now I can use it on my windows partition.

[Sidoh]

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.

[MyndFyre]

Would somebody reply to my post?  You know, the one that had relevant and good questions and points? 

Maybe stop flamebaiting Warrior and we'll actually accomplish something worthwhile?

[Warrior]

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.

Sure but when it's documented and clarified on exactly how it's done I don't see a problem with it. It's stated as a totally new method of doing something. If there is anything MS acknowledges it's Unix so I know someone in some technical doc it explains how UAP has roots in Unix thinking.

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?

Sure, look at MacOSX Widgets. An idea everyone has used and the feature most pointed out by Mac enthusiasts to be stolen.
Windows does their Widgets in a different matter, way different.

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.

Well they offer technical documents on the matter but I think with thinks like UAP they explain how it works pretty well in just the feature page. Widgets as well are another thing which are documented all over MSDN and there is even a page dedicated to developing them.

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).

Alright, either way with things like Widgets and UAP they are sure not to call it innovative. New? Yes but not innovative.

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.

They actually in their Mac lab test compatability with Apple hardware and how Mac does certain things. They might take into consideration for example BootCamp and such which in that case they'd tune Windows to work more seamlessly.

[Sidoh]

Would somebody reply to my post?  You know, the one that had relevant and good questions and points? 

Maybe stop flamebaiting Warrior and we'll actually accomplish something worthwhile?

It's not flamebait.  Read the posts; they're actually rational.

Warrior: I don't have time for debate today, I have too many things to do (scholarship interview, prom banquet, polishing a website, homework, chores).  Plus, I don't feel like it.