News
Not New. But Improved.
Apple released the 10.6 update to its Mac OS X operating system (OS) last Friday, and Microsoft will let stores start selling Windows 7 on October 22. (Windows 7 is essentially done.) These two OS updates are being advertised uniquely: Instead on focusing on 1,000 new features, Apple and Microsoft said they dedicated most of their efforts to making the operating system better, faster, and more secure, and making more efficient use of hardware.
The two companies have markedly different cultures, user bases, forms of loyalty, revenue centers, and development processes. Nonetheless, Apple and Microsoft took nearly the same road for major system updates. Let's start with Apple, since its new version is already out.
Apple said over a year ago that 10.6, dubbed Snow Leopard, would have no substantial new features, and the company stuck to that. It was a weird stance to take. Essentially, Apple was admitting that its current release—10.5, known as Leopard—wasn't good enough. And we Mac users knew that.
Leopard started rough. The 10.5.0 release, where that last ".0" indicates the incremental improvements to the system, wasn't ready for prime time. It was rushed, shipped in 2007 after a delay of six months related to getting the iPhone out in time. Apple admitted shifting tons of resources to ensuring a successful iPhone debut.
Leopard took two minor updates (10.5.1 and 10.5.2) and several months before Apple got it right. With one release, I was forced to reinstall Mac OS X to regain access to my files and programs. While that's often been a requirement and a recommendation for Windows XP (and vastly less so for Vista), it's extremely rare unless you have hard disk corruption on a Mac.
Apple said that with Snow Leopard, it wanted to make the OS more efficient: It reduced the footprint, taking away gigabytes of unneeded data and compressing other parts, and rewrote hunks of commonly used components and programs that ship with Mac OS X.
The company also tapped into some new features, including making it simple for software programmers outside the company (so-called third-party developers) to use the increasingly powerful graphics processors for some computations, and dramatically revamped how programmers can have multiple processing units ("cores") carry out actions at the same time instead of one after the other.
This release is the first time I can recall a company saying, we don't want to give you anything new, just better. The update is $29 for those with Leopard installed, and $169 for those with 10.4 (Tiger) on their computers. But this is Apple: Since the company already made its money from you selling you hardware, there's no serial number for installation, and a $29 Leopard update will update Tiger, too. (This is a violation of the terms and services, but Apple doesn't have a remote enforcement mechanism like some companies I'm about to mention.)
(For technical types, yes, Apple also upgraded most of its applications to take advantage of 64-bit processing, which can improve software performance, and has implications for better underlying security due to features Intel built into its processors that are only supported in 64-bit code. The OS kernel ships in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, but consumer Macs boot only into the 32-bit flavor. Hold down 6 and 4--seriously--at startup to boot into a 64-bit kernel.)
Microsoft appears to be in a remarkably similar boat with Windows 7. While the company has trumpeted a few new elements in the release slated for October, the Redmond software maker really needs to win over Windows XP users, and it's going to be hard.
XP's replacement was supposed to be Vista, but it didn't work out quite that way for two reasons. First, the results after upgrading XP to Vista—at least in the early days—could be quite awful. Second, Microsoft was optimistic about the system requirements for Vista with some lower-end new models. So optimistic that a class-action lawsuit was filed (and downgraded to remove the class status earlier this year) over the requirements.
Now, I have a Dell laptop that I purchased after Vista shipped that had all the mid-level, not bottom-level, system specs for Vista to perform well. It's always worked fine. I haven't seen any system trouble, although it's not my main computer. And I expect millions or tens of millions of other people are in the same boat, but it's hard to tell.
Microsoft claims a massive installed Vista base, but it conveniently overlooks an option that was grafted on to Vista licenses. Most computer makers offered XP plus Vista: The license was for Vista, but the makers could pre-install a "downgrade" to XP to make it easier for you to transition later to Vista through included discs. That likely never happened for many people, because Vista didn't offer enough to make it worth the upgrade. Many businesses opted to stay on XP, too, because they couldn't see enough of a benefit to go through the cost and pain of updating. And they knew Windows 7 wasn't too far off even when Vista shipped.
That was unfortunate, because Vista has a far better underlying security model and has been more resilient to attacks. In fact, Apple still lags Microsoft in several significant system security measures, despite Windows remaining the target of choice for virus writers. (Malicious software writing has moved mostly into third-party software, more easily exploitable and less frequently updated, with less reliance on operating system flaws to gain access.)
Vista wasn't a disaster, though; Windows Me (the version between 98 and XP) claims that award. Vista mostly had bad timing and some bad business decisions behind it.
Where Windows 7 comes in is, as with Apple's Snow Leopard, a way to open up more power to existing computers through better efficiency, a cleaner interface, use of graphics processing, and more consistency across everything in the OS.
Early reports from beta testers and those using the release candidate (RC) that's been widely available are extremely positive. I suspect Windows 7 will be a huge hit among business users who want to move from XP, but found Vista lacking, and are now haven't had to pay for operating system upgrades for several years. With no new Windows in the offing for years, corporations will start migrating if Windows 7 plays out as well as it appears.
Unfortunately for XP users, though, Windows 7 has one giant flaw. You cannot upgrade from XP to 7 directly. Instead, you will have to back up all your data, erase your drive, install Windows 7, and then restore programs and files. Microsoft offers the free Windows Easy Transfer , which can back up necessary files; Windows 7 will ostensibly come with the restore option.
That's an onerous and time consuming process, but it'll produce a very stable OS. (Apple's always had a simple install-in-place upgrade, but plenty of folks have wound up performing an Archive and Install operation in which a clean system was put in place, but user documents and programs untouched. Leopard to Snow Leopard is a very small leap, and thus least likely to cause trouble.)
Windows 7 will cost from $120 to $220 depending on the flavor you want, and Microsoft is offering XP users the same upgrade pricing as Vista owners, which is a rare move for the firm. Most home users will find the $120 Home Premium version to be what they need; $200 gets you the Pro release and $220 "ultimate" had little of interest.
A bunch of formerly included software in XP and Vista, such as a movie-editing application, isn't bundled, but will be available at no cost. (Windows 7 Pro and Ultimate buyers can also download a Windows XP virtual machine that lets them run XP programs in emulation if programs haven't been updated to work in 7.)
With competency and efficiency emphasized in these two major system updates, I have little idea what both companies will be pushing for next. Microsoft mentions touchscreen monitors as a feature that Windows 7 supports, and Apple added drawing-pad recognition of Chinese characters in Snow Leopard.
OS updates drive revenue—partly because they often require new hardware, too—but in the past there have always been long laundry lists of missing features to graft into a new system. If the measure now is making something the same, only better, what can Mac OS X Bobcat or Windows 8 bring to the table?
I'm not ready for direct machine-to-mind interfaces.
The two companies have markedly different cultures, user bases, forms of loyalty, revenue centers, and development processes. Nonetheless, Apple and Microsoft took nearly the same road for major system updates. Let's start with Apple, since its new version is already out.
Apple said over a year ago that 10.6, dubbed Snow Leopard, would have no substantial new features, and the company stuck to that. It was a weird stance to take. Essentially, Apple was admitting that its current release—10.5, known as Leopard—wasn't good enough. And we Mac users knew that.
Leopard started rough. The 10.5.0 release, where that last ".0" indicates the incremental improvements to the system, wasn't ready for prime time. It was rushed, shipped in 2007 after a delay of six months related to getting the iPhone out in time. Apple admitted shifting tons of resources to ensuring a successful iPhone debut.
Leopard took two minor updates (10.5.1 and 10.5.2) and several months before Apple got it right. With one release, I was forced to reinstall Mac OS X to regain access to my files and programs. While that's often been a requirement and a recommendation for Windows XP (and vastly less so for Vista), it's extremely rare unless you have hard disk corruption on a Mac.
Apple said that with Snow Leopard, it wanted to make the OS more efficient: It reduced the footprint, taking away gigabytes of unneeded data and compressing other parts, and rewrote hunks of commonly used components and programs that ship with Mac OS X.
The company also tapped into some new features, including making it simple for software programmers outside the company (so-called third-party developers) to use the increasingly powerful graphics processors for some computations, and dramatically revamped how programmers can have multiple processing units ("cores") carry out actions at the same time instead of one after the other.
This release is the first time I can recall a company saying, we don't want to give you anything new, just better. The update is $29 for those with Leopard installed, and $169 for those with 10.4 (Tiger) on their computers. But this is Apple: Since the company already made its money from you selling you hardware, there's no serial number for installation, and a $29 Leopard update will update Tiger, too. (This is a violation of the terms and services, but Apple doesn't have a remote enforcement mechanism like some companies I'm about to mention.)
(For technical types, yes, Apple also upgraded most of its applications to take advantage of 64-bit processing, which can improve software performance, and has implications for better underlying security due to features Intel built into its processors that are only supported in 64-bit code. The OS kernel ships in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, but consumer Macs boot only into the 32-bit flavor. Hold down 6 and 4--seriously--at startup to boot into a 64-bit kernel.)
Microsoft appears to be in a remarkably similar boat with Windows 7. While the company has trumpeted a few new elements in the release slated for October, the Redmond software maker really needs to win over Windows XP users, and it's going to be hard.
XP's replacement was supposed to be Vista, but it didn't work out quite that way for two reasons. First, the results after upgrading XP to Vista—at least in the early days—could be quite awful. Second, Microsoft was optimistic about the system requirements for Vista with some lower-end new models. So optimistic that a class-action lawsuit was filed (and downgraded to remove the class status earlier this year) over the requirements.
Now, I have a Dell laptop that I purchased after Vista shipped that had all the mid-level, not bottom-level, system specs for Vista to perform well. It's always worked fine. I haven't seen any system trouble, although it's not my main computer. And I expect millions or tens of millions of other people are in the same boat, but it's hard to tell.
Microsoft claims a massive installed Vista base, but it conveniently overlooks an option that was grafted on to Vista licenses. Most computer makers offered XP plus Vista: The license was for Vista, but the makers could pre-install a "downgrade" to XP to make it easier for you to transition later to Vista through included discs. That likely never happened for many people, because Vista didn't offer enough to make it worth the upgrade. Many businesses opted to stay on XP, too, because they couldn't see enough of a benefit to go through the cost and pain of updating. And they knew Windows 7 wasn't too far off even when Vista shipped.
That was unfortunate, because Vista has a far better underlying security model and has been more resilient to attacks. In fact, Apple still lags Microsoft in several significant system security measures, despite Windows remaining the target of choice for virus writers. (Malicious software writing has moved mostly into third-party software, more easily exploitable and less frequently updated, with less reliance on operating system flaws to gain access.)
Vista wasn't a disaster, though; Windows Me (the version between 98 and XP) claims that award. Vista mostly had bad timing and some bad business decisions behind it.
Where Windows 7 comes in is, as with Apple's Snow Leopard, a way to open up more power to existing computers through better efficiency, a cleaner interface, use of graphics processing, and more consistency across everything in the OS.
Early reports from beta testers and those using the release candidate (RC) that's been widely available are extremely positive. I suspect Windows 7 will be a huge hit among business users who want to move from XP, but found Vista lacking, and are now haven't had to pay for operating system upgrades for several years. With no new Windows in the offing for years, corporations will start migrating if Windows 7 plays out as well as it appears.
Unfortunately for XP users, though, Windows 7 has one giant flaw. You cannot upgrade from XP to 7 directly. Instead, you will have to back up all your data, erase your drive, install Windows 7, and then restore programs and files. Microsoft offers the free Windows Easy Transfer , which can back up necessary files; Windows 7 will ostensibly come with the restore option.
That's an onerous and time consuming process, but it'll produce a very stable OS. (Apple's always had a simple install-in-place upgrade, but plenty of folks have wound up performing an Archive and Install operation in which a clean system was put in place, but user documents and programs untouched. Leopard to Snow Leopard is a very small leap, and thus least likely to cause trouble.)
Windows 7 will cost from $120 to $220 depending on the flavor you want, and Microsoft is offering XP users the same upgrade pricing as Vista owners, which is a rare move for the firm. Most home users will find the $120 Home Premium version to be what they need; $200 gets you the Pro release and $220 "ultimate" had little of interest.
A bunch of formerly included software in XP and Vista, such as a movie-editing application, isn't bundled, but will be available at no cost. (Windows 7 Pro and Ultimate buyers can also download a Windows XP virtual machine that lets them run XP programs in emulation if programs haven't been updated to work in 7.)
With competency and efficiency emphasized in these two major system updates, I have little idea what both companies will be pushing for next. Microsoft mentions touchscreen monitors as a feature that Windows 7 supports, and Apple added drawing-pad recognition of Chinese characters in Snow Leopard.
OS updates drive revenue—partly because they often require new hardware, too—but in the past there have always been long laundry lists of missing features to graft into a new system. If the measure now is making something the same, only better, what can Mac OS X Bobcat or Windows 8 bring to the table?
I'm not ready for direct machine-to-mind interfaces.
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
