Okay, so this is new. When it comes to graphical user interfaces, everyone is copying everyone, but you’ll always find supporters of platform Abc claiming platform Xyz is stealing from them – and vice versa. Mac supporters have often stated that Vista and Windows 7 were copying from Apple, and according to Microsoft’s partner group manager, Simon Aldous, this is true. Wait, what?
I stumbled upon this one just now on an Apple news website, and it made me stare at my screen for a few blinking seconds. A Microsoft manager saying flat-out that Windows 7 copied Mac OS X? Surely, he had been misquoted. Or something. Well, turns out he wasn’t.
Microsoft is currently holding a partner conference in Wembley Stadium, and as such, PCR Online decided to interview Microsoft’s partner group manager, Simon Aldous. When asked “is Windows 7 really a much more agile operating system, in terms of the specific uses it can be moulded to?”, he replied:
The interesting thing is, it’s basically the next version of Vista. Vista was a totally redesigned operating system from XP. We’ve improved upon Vista in that way. We’ve stripped out a lot of the code, we’ve made a lot of it much more efficient, it sits on a smaller footprint, it operates far more quickly, it’s far more agile and effective in terms of the calls it makes. I saw an article recently that described it as ‘Vista on steroids’, and in some ways you can absolutely relate to that.One of the things that people say an awful lot about the Apple Mac is that the OS is fantastic, that it’s very graphical and easy to use. What we’ve tried to do with Windows 7 ^aEUR“ whether it’s traditional format or in a touch format ^aEUR“ is create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics. We’ve significantly improved the graphical user interface, but it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance.
I have a faint feeling we’ll see a redaction or a I’ve-been-misquoted claim soon, because something like this surely shouldn’t be said by a Microsoft manager. It sure is refreshing, but at the same time, it’s also complete nonsense. I see little in Windows 7 that makes it look or function like Mac OS X, and I see little Aqua in Aero either.
I’m having the feeling a certain group of people are going to have a field day with this one. I have to say, if this is indeed what Microsoft wants to profess – than more power to them. The honesty would be a welcome change of pace in this industry.
If they say that it’s a misquote or something like Thom is suggesting, it will be because it’s bad PR for the company rather than it being false.
Such blatant copying on Microsoft’s part is something that is commonly known. The Microsoft apologists may try to sugar coat it by saying that inspiration goes both ways. I suppose that may be true on some level but I highly doubt that Apple holds up Microsoft’s ideas as something to mimic. Rather, Apple may sometimes feel like they have to follow a design standard because it’s more commonly in use because Microsoft populated it.
I’ve always believed that Microsoft on the other hand holds Apple’s UIs up as a standard to try to achieve and this quote now confirms it.
Trying to outdo ones competition is something every business should aspire to do. If anyone is complaining about Microsoft its not that they copied but that they blatantly copy, copy poorly and rarely make improvements as a result.
Lets not muddy the waters anymore by implying that the copying is done equally. It does a disservice to the organizations who actually create and ship UI’s that are both aesthetically pleasing as well as functional.
On a side note… Thom, apparently you’re spending time on MDN too.
Edited 2009-11-11 21:06 UTC
Then what exactly is being copied? I just don’t get it. I have extensive experience with both desktops, and I just don’t see it. Obviously, they are identical because they are both implementations of the exact same concept (just like GNOME or whatever), but if the bounds of the GUI world are set by the main environments out there, then I just don’t see what Microsoft has so obviously copied from Mac OS X.
Enlighten me, please.
Are you wanting to see examples where 7 is similar to snow leopard or Windows is similar to Macintosh?
The former is less specific but can see where the inspiration derived from. The later is so apparent that I don’t believe that I actually need to make such comparisons.
Edited 2009-11-11 21:02 UTC
Well, I guess I’m blind then or something. The Aero look bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Aqua look, and in behaviour, too (the “feel” bit of look and feel), I see very differing approaches to file management, window management, application management, and in the way the OS treats applications vs. documents.
“Well, I guess I’m blind then or something. The Aero look bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Aqua look”
I said, “The former is less specific but can see where the inspiration derived from. The later is so apparent that I don’t believe that I actually need to make such comparisons.” You’re speaking of the former example where the similarities are less specific yet you’re asking that I provide examples like those that are more obvious ion the latter scenario. In other words, you didn’t answer the question properly.
Edited 2009-11-11 21:10 UTC
I’m talking about both. So, here are a few simple questions:
– in what ways is Windows similar to Mac OS X?
– in what ways is 7 similar to Snow Leopard?
I already said that I see two oprating systems that differ greatly from one another; the Aero look bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Aqua look, and in behaviour, too (the “feel” bit of look and feel), I see very differing approaches to file management, window management, application management, and in the way the OS treats applications vs. documents.
Since you claim it’s so obvious: please enlighten a poor sod like me.
“in what ways is Windows similar to Mac OS X?”
These are the obvious references I spoke of and have been rehashed to death time and time again. Frankly I’m surprised that you require reminding considering this is a topic that is repeated so commonly on sites such as this. Here’s a short list: Mouse Cursor, folders, icons, desktop metaphor, trash can, drop-down menus etc.
Perhaps you feel that the debate is mitigated because Apple purchased very basic UI concepts from Xerox and built on those? First, is that “stealing” if they acquired something by way of compensation. Secondly, the UI concepts that Xerox had developed were so far removed from what eventually shipped in the first Mac OS that I’m always surprised that anyone would make such a case if they knew the history. Being the editor of a semi popular OS blog, I would assume that you do in fact know the history, so I’ll assume that you forgot about all those similarities that Microsoft stole from Apple.
“in what ways is 7 similar to Snow Leopard?”
I mentioned that these items are far less specific and thus don’t warrant a bulleted list. With that said, they already said that OS X was their inspiration for 7 so this is not something that even needs to be debated anyways. There are however some obvious things that were direct lifts from OS X. A couple are the dock and stacks. Though it could be argued that they did make some improvements on these, to suggest that these two weren’t inspired by OS X is delusional… especially so when they already said as much.
“Since you claim it’s so obvious: please enlighten a poor sod like me.”
I said what was obvious was the similarities between Windows and Macintosh. Not the similarities between the more recent changes that took place in 7 as compared to Leopard and Snow Leopard.
Edited 2009-11-11 21:59 UTC
ah, so we’re back in the ’80s. I can name a few things Apple copied from Microsoft, then: protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, SMP support.
Just some random things.
Uhm, the article even clearly mentions that: in the grand scheme of things, Windows, Mac OS X, and GNOME are pretty much the exact same thing. If you can use Windows, you can use the others too without any problems, and vice versa.
However, within the boundaries set by these UIs themselves, the differences between Windows and Mac OS X are quite blatant in almost every way – I’ll rehash the list again: Aero doesn’t look anything like Aqua, application management on Windows is different, file management is different, and most importantly, the approach to document vs. application is decidedly different.
And here we are, still nothing that shows the validity of the claim that Windows 7 copied Mac OS X in any significant way.
“ah, so we’re back in the ’80s.”
The point was whether Microsoft had a history of copying interfaces. You had implied they didn’t.
“I can name a few things Apple copied from Microsoft, then: protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, SMP support.”
First of all, these aren’t interfaces, second, Microsoft simply released these technologies before Apple. They didn’t create them. Apple didn’t copy them. Apple was held back by an outdated OS. With that said, NeXT was first to incorporate those technologies anyways. Considering that OS X *IS* NeXT, your watered down attempt to illustrate copying on Apple’s part is even more mitigated.
“Uhm, the article even clearly mentions that: in the grand scheme of things, Windows, Mac OS X, and GNOME are pretty much the exact same thing. If you can use Windows, you can use the others too without any problems, and vice versa.”
So, you’re saying that because everyone has held Mac OS as the standard to attain that somehow that makes subsequent efforts to copy Apple’s work a non issue?
“However, within the boundaries set by these UIs themselves, the differences between Windows and Mac OS X are quite blatant in almost every way”
I never said that there aren’t differences.
“I’ll rehash the list again: Aero doesn’t look anything like Aqua, application management on Windows is different, file management is different, and most importantly, the approach to document vs. application is decidedly different.”
Yet they did aspire to be Mac-like as was the whole point of the story to which my point was that this is simply something they have always done yet Microsoft apologists always denied.
Edited 2009-11-11 22:25 UTC
And Apple “stole” most of it from Xerox and Apple stole elsewhere too like (Work)Spaces from X11 etc.
But this whole “who stole from whom” debate is utterly pointless, like software patents. There shouldn’t be monopolies on math or ideas.
Over and out.
This myth is too often repeated over-and-over. It has already been stated in this thread that Apple reimbursed Xerox for their GUI desktop metaphor ideas. Furthermore there is a large difference between the concepts they observed at Xerox and those that finally shipped on the Lisa.
They reimbursed xerox? I don’t think so. They stole it, then had the gall to sue MS when they used the same concepts. Xerox also sued Apple AND MS, but waited to long and lost after Apple lost theier lawsuit.
Google it.
“Hi, I’m a random Internet user that likes to spout stuff without doing any kind of fact checking!”
After hearing about the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC from former Xerox employees like Raskin, Jobs negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options.
Here is just one of many, many, many sources
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Apple-Macintosh
It is even specified in several computer history books that I own.
And, yes, I guess you will argue that they paid to “see” the stuff and not to “use” it.
Edited 2009-11-12 14:46 UTC
Yes I will. xerox sued them, that is fact. You can ignore fact if you want. REad this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp…. Also, I was actually alive when this occurred, and remember hearing bits and pieces. Random Internet user indeed.
Edited 2009-11-12 14:56 UTC
There ya go. You pointed to a source finally
Thanks. And I guess I stand corrected.
Don’t bring NeXT into this
And, no, they didn’t invent that stuff. And neither did Intel that someone mentioned below.
SMP – Burroughs B5500 first implemented it in 1961.
Preemptive Multitasking – Can’t pin it down, but it was around in the 60s at least. Unix had it from the get-go.
Protected Memory – Again, this was around by at least the 60s if not slightly earlier. I can’t find a source at the moment, I’d have to dig out my history books later.
Do you people bother to look up ANYTHING, or do you just spout off shit you have heard or thought you have heard? Entities besides Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft, ‘Linux’, and Google have existed – and still do – for a LONG time that invent and create a LOT of things.
The entire world is built upon people improving on the work of others or out right copying it and possibly just doing it better.
Get. Over. It.
It is amazing the amount of energy wasted by people arguing over who did something first.
So Enlightnment and KDE where aspiring to be osX like when they made use of full and semi transparencies in the window boarder years before it shipped on Apple’s platform? Because apple did it eventually, everything else that has is inspired by them?
Wasn’t all that invented by Intel?
Are you claming that Microsoft invented protected-memory, SMP, etc? Whaaaaaa?
Nope. I used them on purpose: technologies everybody was going to use anyway. Just because Microsoft got there first doesn’t mean Apple copied them.
The same goes for the whole argument about the stuff that came out of PARC. If company A copies technology 1 from company B, and company C implements technology 1 too – did company C copy it from company A, or from company B?
I think IBM had those a few decades before MS
I could be a complete wanker here & point out that Apple got these things from BSD and BSD had it before Msft so one could argue that Msft copied Apple here. But I don’t want to be a wanker so I’m not going to do that.
These are not MS inventions. OS/2 (and other OSs) had these features earlier.
Protip: Apple’s SMP support in OSX is from BSD. This predates Microsoft’s existence.
Purchased? hahahahahahah
Thom,
This is the kind of incident that I almost find amusing due to the wave of flame wars that ensue between Mac and Windows users.
However, I think it would be fair to share the real way Windows 7 was designed which Microsoft shared shortly after this story was published:
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/11/11/how-we…
I hope you will find the information interesting!
Best regards,
Alex
Microsoft Windows Client Team
Compositing window manager, Dock (not a verbatim copy, but strongly inspired), menubar-less application windows — among other things.
Having used both OS’s since Adam was in shorts, the morphing of Windows into Mac OS (graphically) has been very apparent. From the original Windows through 95 to XP, Windows concepts have progressively changed to be more like Mac OS, but graphically Windows always felt “plastic”, easily broken. I believe his reference was to this aspect more-so than anything functional.
Windows 7 is the first Windows OS that, to me, feels solid, feels like it has substance. Using Windows has always felt like walking on eggshells, just waiting for something to break, but Windows 7’s UI just feels more solid.
That’s my take anyway, I certainly don’t see anything any more functionally like OSX than it was in Vista…
I always felt the internals were going to crack, and many times they just did.
Actually, I’ve been of the opinion that Microsoft’s Windows operating systems are slowly moving towards mimicking Linux more than OS X. In many ways Windows 7 looks and behaves more like the Linux desktops (increasingly so, with each iteration). And even “under the hood” things are slowly becoming more Linux-like.
It’s that Windows 7 gets out of your way when you’re trying to do something. Since Windows XP got the addition of Wizards, Windows has been all too helpful, especially when you didn’t need it and were trying to get things done.
They wanted to streamline the user experience to lessen the frustration, which is pretty much how Mac OS has been from the beginning.
I don’t see it either.
If we were talking DreamLinux or gOS… I might say yes.
Windows 7 looks nothing like MacOS. After using it for a week or two, I prefer Windows XP.
I think he meant to copy the easy of use. Anyway, all modern desktops “borrow” ideas from each other. Nothing wrong with that. There’s no need to keep inventing the wheel when others have already done it.
The only thing I can think of is there is a change to sidebar of course, that no longer sticks up on the side of any window. As it is now there is a much leaner look having just the gadgets on the desktop. Included of course is the all encompassing glass effect from the task bar to any windows title bar. This does present a much more uniform and clean look, something I think many would also ascribe to OSX. My impression of this interview was that Microsoft simply wanted to have a more uncluttered look and feel, which is what they looked to OSX for inspiration. I don’t think there should be any time wasted looking for specifics because they simply are not there.
And if the Win7 GUI is inspired by OSX, then a thank you to Apple and their design team is in order as I do like the GUI hundredfold more than Vista and XP.
Probably nothing.
It’s just about this phrase taken out of context:
“…create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics”
Which is in fact very unfortunate wording. The whole paragraph is about _matching_ Mac’s UI features which is IMHO rather good thing.
Wow, talk about apologists sugaring it up.
Well you know what they say, imitation is the biggest form of flattery.
OSX is a sort of gold standard when the matter is look and feel. It is not really surprising that people draw some inspiration from it.
Anyway, blatant copies nearly always falls short against the original.
Well technically he didn’t say they copied it. He said they “create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics.”
What that says to me is that they took the elements of the Mac OS people liked and adapted them to Windows GUI. They did copy elements I suppose or functionality, but the didn’t just go and copy the whole interface.
With that said though. They are smart to do that and they are smart (maybe not legally) to say they did. Kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the bashers.
Windows has progressively gotten better as an OS. I won’t deny that. Doesn’t mean I have to like them though. GO LINUX.
That’s my take too – the choice of words is poor, but what he’s clearly saying is that they looked at what the competition had done well, and built their own look and feel from what they learned. Not that they’ve just copied the MacOS look and feel.
I am guessing what he really means is the move to simplicity and a cleaner UI in places like the control panel. The control panel really is different in Win 7 – and it’s a bit jarring when you come across the little bits that haven’t been fully converted.
As for the rest of windows the look and feel isn’t all that mac-ish. In fact the newly redesigned task bar is less a rip-off of the Dock than it is a throwback to windows 1 – http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win101
Edited 2009-11-11 21:14 UTC
Personally I think that 7 looks like it was copied from KDE4 rather than OS X
Except Vista came before KDE4, and KDE4 copied parts of it and OSX and slapped them together it seems.
Incorrect KDE 4 was in development long before vista was released.
Well, to the extent that it really matters who copied who… because the important thing is that good ideas do get passed around (which is a very good thing), rather than who tried them first… I would point out that Vista^WLonghorn was vaporware for even longer than KDE4 was. Much longer, in fact. In that sense, Vista came before KDE4.
Edited 2009-11-12 00:40 UTC
I am going from memory here, so I could be wrong. But when the first KDE4 screenshots were being released, Longhorn/Vista still had the XP look to it. I do not see any comparison between Vista/KDE4. Windows 7/KDE4? Oh yes.
Yeah, I thought the exact same thing, glad to know it’s not just me being weird! Maybe it’s just because I use KDE 4 at home and when I used Windows it’s mainly been the server editions at work, which obviously don’t have all the desktop GUI bling. But I got and installed Windows 7 recently (for games of course, real work is done on Linux as everyone knows
) and I can’t help but feel amazed by the way it kind of feels like KDE 4 at every turn.
I doubt Windows 7 actually copied KDE 4, my personal view is that there are UI trends just like there are trends in everything else, so of course things from a similar era will be similar.
Yay, another eensationalist headline from Thom, who clearly has no ability to comprehend whatsoever. The rep said they tried to create a look and feel similar to OSX, not that they copied it.
It’s not the same as KDE, Gnome and others who blatantly ripped Windows in the past (KDE is now mostly ripping OSX though).
Xerox inspired Mac, which inspires Windows, which inspires Linux DEs.
There! Now no further comments need to be made on this piece of shoddy reporting.
History way off.
Xerox inspired Mac and X11 directly. There is a reason why X11 logo is a X struck out.
KDE Gnome blatantly ripped Windows don’t make me laugh. Linux windows managers have done some of the most insane experiments ever. Where KDE menu is located predates MS or KDE doing it. KDE compition is a rebuild of a project called compiz of all thing that predates Mac doing it. Open source first but buggy.
Trash can was copied in KDE straight from Mac. Linux world as inspired Mac as much as Mac has inspired the Linux world. Nothing really traces to windows ways of doing things.
http://insitu.lri.fr/metisse/ Really I would like to see this move out of research and into production Linux desktops.
Ie KDE ripping OSX has been going on for ever.
Well, most of us have trouble comprehending whatsoever, since that covers just about everything.
Microsoft has lots of money/power… and they copy OS X user interface. Fine!! It’s better for all of us!
People from KDE (and GNOME) don’t have any money but they try to reinvent the wheel with every release…
Please, accept it, OS X has the simplest and smartest user interface out there. Copy it, improve it!
That would be really bad. I absolutely hate the OSX UI. Some people love it though. Not everyone has the same preferences. That is why I like Linux so much; it is very configurable.
The ability to configure an interface unconditionally may benefit yourself but does a massive disservice for a platform as a whole and the ultimate usability of it.
Consistency in UIs is far more important than configurability.
Configurability is only important when the interface is poor from the beginning which I suppose is why this level of adaptation is regarded so highly within the Linux community.
If an interface addresses the needs of most people, the interface out to limit the default options at UI configuration.
It explains why Linux is at one end of the spectrum and OS X is at the other.
Don’t generalise. GNOME is far more consistent than Mac OS X, where even Apple’s own applications sport wildly different UI designs.
I digress. A consistent UI with options to further configure it is better. That’s the KDE way.
There is no consistency in Windows world. All applications look slightly different according to the toolkit they use. I still find ridiculous how lots of Microsoft provided applications have a white square as popup menu without icons or really badly designed ones. Looks so ’80s.
Sometimes I need a simple UI. Sometimes I need to do something a different way and I need the extra configuration. As long as the extra configuration is available for anyone to use and doesn’t disturb Joe User, why is it so wrong to offer customizability?
There are different models of clothes, cars, houses, monitors, mouses, shoes, to fit different tastes. What makes you think there is “The One UI To Rules Them All”?
It has nothing to do with configuration. It has everything to do with coherency in the toolkits provided. Apple only provides one. Linux has many toolkits, many desktops, many distros…
Yes.
True. I meant I disagree.
The first thing I have to do every time I try OSX is install a third party tool to disable mouse acceleration.
If configurability is only important when the interface is poor then I’ve successfully fixed GNOME while OSX remains permanently broken to some extent.
But the truth is an interface can be configurable and consistent at the same time – having the same set of components and having it obvious what those components are and having them behave the same regardless of how they’re arranged.
No, don’t copy the UI. Use the design philosophies behind it: Simple, Intuitive, Elegant, Responsive, Pretty.
We don’t need an all Aqua desktop landscape where the only difference between the OSes are the kernel and the accompanying plumbing. what we need are graceful interfaces that help the user in doing their computing tasks, without being intrusive.
I think MS got it with Windows 7. The interface is Simple, Intuitive, Elegant, Responsive, Pretty. Yet it isn’t Aqua.
Let’s hope the FOSS DE’s get there too eventually. Don’t get me wrong, I use Gnome at home, but when I look at KDE and GNOME it is clear that KDE needs a bit more work on the Simple part and Gnome definitely needs to bulk up on the Pretty.
The thing I find interesting about this article is how it sounds like it’s publishing was done as an act of damage control.
Microsoft said that they got their inspiration from Apple. Mac users have been saying this for a while. Just because Thom and those like him didn’t like how that made him/them feel doesn’t change the fact that Microsoft does (and apparently did) hold up the Mac UI as a standard they would like to attain.
The damage control stance that this article seems to take only tends to reinforce the notion that appears obvious to some of us that this site would like to bring Apple down a few pegs.
Edited 2009-11-11 21:28 UTC
News flash! Somebody states the obvious!
The whole history of software development is based on taking somebody else’s idea and improving on it by modifying it for your own needs and specific situations, with only the occasional moment of pure innovation. Actually, the whole history of tool making is based on this.
If Microsoft were to ignore ways to streamline the taskbar and and improve window look and feel, they would have been accused of NIH syndrome, and people would be saying how backwards they are.
They just can’t win.
They failed to copy OS X again.
Oh, really?
I’d say they absolutely copied some of the essential ideas of how the Mac GUI works, starting with Vista. And they didn’t do it badly, this time. MS even improved the Dock concept by making it a window switcher, which is much more intuitive and obvious for the user than pressing an Expos~A(c) button, IMHO.
So, is MS fully there yet? No, sure not. But have they copied a significant part of the OS X UI? Absolutely.
This is nothing new, Microsoft has been stealing from Apple since the the early 1980s, and from numerous other companies since; products, ideas, standards, etc.
Yawn…
Edited 2009-11-11 23:36 UTC
Just because someone didn’t like my comment and modded it down doesn’t make it less true.
Before you jump to defend Microsoft think… Would Microsoft defend you?
Apple sure as hell wouldn’t either.
And neither would the freetardian, unwashed, neckbeard masses of Linux. Wah.
The 7 dock is very strongly inspired by the OSX one tbh, though they iterated a bit with the windows that pop over it. I hate that dock btw
Not News: The fact that this sort of copying/imitation was going on at Microsoft.
News: Some of you are actually shocked that it is true.
He’s really gonna take a beating.
I gotta say, I am really enjoying Windows 7. It looks good, works well (so far), and has some clever, new features that make it more fun to use.
I also love the breadcrumb implementation in the Explorer. Much better than OS X (crippled version of NEXTSTEP’s).
I thought I would not like the translucency of everything, but I am digging it.
I will say, however, that some of the apps are slow as molasses. Take Windows Live Mail… holy cow, Thunderbird runs circles around it!
Calendar app stinks too… but hey, you can’t have everything (without paying for it – unless you go linux).
Is he? I’ve observed that it is mainly OS fans who engage in ridiculous “Did too! Did not! Did too! Did not!” exchanges with regards to cross-pollenation. If Microsoft comments, I would expect them to say that they are open to implementing any ideas which improve their products.
That will not, however, prevent them from continuing to abuse the “I” word, unfortunately.
Edited 2009-11-12 01:02 UTC
Does it matter where the beating comes from? If I beat you over the head with a stick, or a monkey does, does it hurt any less?
But I know what you mean. It just adds fuel to the wildfire that is the intertubes.
Edited 2009-11-12 01:40 UTC
Who signs my paycheck? You or the monkey?
Edit: Hmmm. I guess in his case it would be the monkey.
Edited 2009-11-12 01:45 UTC
I like it too. Until I get an OSX86 compatible video card, 7 is the main OS on this system. I’m just glad that Windows is finally stable enough for daily use, not to mention the excellent interface.
I do still mess around with Linux, mostly Slackware and Debian, but to be honest Windows is a great main OS now.
Finally stable enough for daily use? Is it the year 1997 where you live? Windows NT was pretty stable, Win2k and XP (especially after SP1) were fairly rock solid. Good to see you propagating the same old crap over and over.
Two things: First, check my comment history here, I’m neither a zealot nor a troll regarding any OS. Second, in my own experience, yes it is finally stable enough for me. I’ve had issues with Windows since 3.11, and I’ve used every release including 2k Pro, XP, Vista and now 7. I’ve also used Server 2003, and while it has been the most stable and reliable version, it isn’t intended as a workstation OS so I don’t count it as one.
I’m glad you’ve had great success with Windows in the past, and I’m glad I am now. My mantra has been and always will be to use the best tool for the job. For me, that means a mix of OS X, BeOS/Haiku, Linux and Windows.
Take your petty, misguided presumptions about my intentions elsewhere, thank you.
I mostly use Debian and Windows, with some BSD thrown in, that however does not change the fact that since Win2k, Windows stability has been just fine. Security, not so much, but from a stability standpoint, Windows is no worse than Linux. To keep propagating crap like that does no one any good.
As far as misguided presumptions, when it comes to operating systems, and life, I tell it like it is, I disagree with your statements about Windows stability, and there isn’t too much you can do to convince me otherwise.
It’s fine if Microsoft want to look at OS X for inspiration. Windows 7 is a step in the right direction, and that’s what counts for me as an end user.
I thought everyone knew this. Always sounded logical to me.
In the movie/documentation “The pirates of Silicon Valley” I think it was (or maybe in one of the unauthorized Steve Jobs biographies, I really can’t remember right now) it was mentioned that when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, one of the many changes he made was to seek contact with Microsoft. They came to an agreement. Apple would allow Microsoft to copy all ideas they wanted from Mac OS X for as long as Microsoft continued to develop Microsoft Office for Mac OS X. I thought it was a good decision on Apple’s side. Apple needs Office, not because it’s a good product, but because people want it or need it for their jobs.
Now I’m not 100% sure anymore if it’s the truth. Either the OSAlert editor of this article didn’t know this or the biogryphy or the movie, whichever it was that mentioned it, lied about this.
I wouldn’t put too much weight in the facts of Pirates of Sylicon Valley. It’s a fun movie but a movie none the less and definitely not meant to be a factual documentary.
Now I do believe that Microsoft has X number of shares in Apple after the last settlement between the two. This also helped keep Apple out of bankruptsy and Microsoft from even more monopoly litigation (see, we have competition in the OS space). I can’t see Apple saying “sure, copy anything you like in future long as you keep doing that Office for osX product line” though.
the OSX dock was seen much earlier in NextStep.
But that being said not all desktops copy equally.
KDE and GNOME copy way too much. One thing I like about Moblin is that it doesn’t look like a cheap knockoff.
That’s the interesting part for me anyways. I haven’t experienced any instability in OSX. Windows Vista …. less than I used to with xp or 98, but it still vomits and seems to slow down every now and then.
I read it more as Microsoft using some elements of OS X as a guide on how to design a better interface for Windows 7. The “ease of use” and “better graphics” were cited.
But that’s were we have to keep Simon Aldous’ comments in perspective. He wasn’t involved in any part of Windows 7’s development from start to finish so using his fumbled attempts at talking up the benefits of the operating system look to be nothing more than nit-picking sensationalism. If this is how sections of the tech media prove any allegation or conspiracy theory, then Simon Aldous, and the other 89,000 Microsoft employees not involved with Windows development, all have the potential to be sources of future “scoops”.
The Windows Team Blog already has put up a <a href=”http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/11/11/how-we….
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/11/11/how-we…
Poor chap, he’s probably given 10 minutes time to clear his desk and leave the building as we speak.
I only post this because, if I recall correctly, Thom’s expressed great admiration for “the lovely Julie Larson-Green”, and so I got a kick out of seeing her (indirectly) refute the claim of this misguded Microsoft sales guy.
Actually, Julie hasn’t herself issued any statement directly refuting the copying from OS X claim, but the Windows Team has cited an earlier Julie Larson-Green article (and other articles) to refute the claim.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/11/11/how-we…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/27/meet-microsofts-ant…
Edited 2009-11-12 10:22 UTC
Julie
.
Like I said, the claim makes little sense to me. Anyone with half a brain can see how different Windows and Mac OS X are.
I don’t quite get how people can actually claim that MS didn’t mimic OS X with Windows 7.
1) Let’s look at the new Taskbar:
The concept behind the Dock is to provide an app starter with an app switcher. This concept was exclusive to the Mac. No, these fancy Dock look-alikes for Win and Linux are NOT THE SAME, they are just stupid app starters with no further logic.
Now, Microsoft has adopted the exact same concept: Combine the app starter with the switcher. But wait, the Dock can do more:
– Graphical indication of running apps
– status indication through Dock icon manipulation like number of emails received or progress bars in Toast
– Context menues on icons to control running apps
– Reposition applications
– Apps not yet in the Dock appear on the right and can be pinned permanently
Microsoft implemented ’em all the EXACT SAME WAY! Did they improve it? YES! Jump lists with recent documents or the windows switching (which Snow Leopard copied now) are prominent examples. Still: How can anybody possibly say that MS didn’t copy OS X?
2) The “Show Desktop” functionality is pretty much the same as active corners with Expos~A(c)’s show desktop feature which OS X has since Tiger.
3) Widgets are in a separate space. MS did the same thing now by restricting their Z coordinate to the desktop layer, all applications and their windows are always painted on top.
And then there are the things MS already did/started in Vista, like…
4) Hit keyboard shortcut to activate desktop search, start typing and view your results live. Like David Pogue put it: The only difference is that MS did it in the bottom left compared to the top right in OS X since Tiger.
5) Menuless windows.
6) Explorer windows with a nice search field in the upper right corner.
I could go on, but this is enough material for now. You may reconsider you opinion or come up with some good arguments to convince me that MS did not heavily copy OS X. And don’t think I’m bitter about it. They copied good, this time and the user can only benefit.
I stopped reading here, the Nextstep Dock predates the OS X dock. the CDE dock predates both. Every GUI needs an app starter and an app switcher. The Windows 98 taskbar fills this bill (app launcher is start menu and quicklaunch, app switcher is the taskbar) The concepts in the Dock certainly were not exclusive to the Mac.
OK, the Dock as we know it in OS X has been influenced mostly by the NeXT stuff, which is hardly suprising. Still, OS X was, up until Windows 7, the only CURRENT SYSTEM of relevance that has this concept it has. And Apple did indeed improve the functionality of predecessors. Heck, they even patented it 10 years ago, if I remember correctly.
So, besides acting as the wise guy, you should have read on. MS copied pretty much EVERY ASPECT that makes the Dock the Dock, they hardly missed anything. Don’t you think?
They are going to be similar, because by design, they do the same job.
They only integrated quicklaunch and removed the text, they left out all the truly innovative features, like the 3d glass background, the totally inadequate indicators on running apps, the annoying and distracting bouncing icons, and the hacked together folder icons.
You may as well complain about Panasonic stealing Toshiba’s power button design, or Ford stealing Chrysler’s steering wheel design.
Sorry, but but is this real ???
“…is create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics. We’ve significantly improved the graphical user interface, but it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance.”
This is the biggest joke I’ve ever heard from someone, oh my God i’m still laughing…it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology……
What type of drugs make someone say things like this ?
Edited 2009-11-12 12:12 UTC
The same ones that Linux fans take to fool themselves into thinking that it will ever be a player on the desktop scene or anything other than a server OS LOL. Linux has already failed on both the netbook and desktop fronts.
Besides, I assume you probably got your evidence from a friend of a friend who used Vista. As someone in a tech position who encountered and used it all the time, it was at least as good as XP and a far sight better than the competition.
Edited 2009-11-12 12:13 UTC
edited: sorry wrong place
Edited 2009-11-12 12:41 UTC
I’m a system Administrator and I work every day with BSD (FreeBSD, OpenBSD), Linux (fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware…) and also Windows 2003, 2008, Windows 7 and Vista.
And yes windows is bad compared to any of the others, it is miles away from OSX.
Dont say things you don’t know, UAC is the dumbest thing implemented.
Telnet ?? where is the client, oh right it is not installed by default.
Ok 10GB of instalations and I only have a Calculator and a Wordpad ???? Don’t joke with me
Ok let’s start messenger and email client….What no email client and messenger after 10GB of instalations ??? I have to donwload that manually ? Hum very good…
2GB of ram only to run VISTA?? 2 minutes minimum to start and shutdonw vista ? Yes it is very stable, common don’t be naive.
Vista is a piece of crap without any inovation, and a resource hog.
Edited 2009-11-12 12:51 UTC
Telnet not being installed by default is a good thing. That cleartext protocol should have died long ago. There should be a native SSH service available in it’s place. At least it has the improvement of no telnet by default.
No where in the quote does Aldous actually say “We Copied the Mac OS X Look-and-Feel.” At most, he says they tried to create a similar look-and-feel. And, of course, it gets blown out proportion by the blind Anything-But-Microsoft crowd (AKA, people who are so hopelessly biased against Windows and Microsoft that they actively look for any and every pretense to bash them).
I’m surprised that anyone takes those claims seriously anymore, since Maclots have been crying “Wolf” and trying to give Apple undeserved credit for other people’s “innovations” for years now. There’s really no reasoning with the Apple fanbois: whenever they see an idea even remotely-similar to something Apple has done, then they jump to the knee-jerk assumption that it must have been “stolen” from Apple (because, in their minds, Apple invented everything).
Witness the morons who seriously believe that Apple invented the portable MP3 player. Hell, give them another few years and they’ll probably start claiming that Apple invented the smartphone.
The irony is that Apple really did invent the PC. No one else had a prebuild “computer for the people” available when Steve and Steve stuffed wood boxes full of chips. It was interesting being reminded of that while recently re-watching the old documentaries. It doesn’t mean I’m going to start liking the current products but I do respect the history.
Beyond that, IBM laughed at them when they first started with the Apple I and II. It wasn’t until they saw the sheer success of the personal computer that they jumped in the game with the IBM-PC.
A company I regularly rail against Flash miss-use and over-saturation combined with the long delay in eventually providing a 64bit Linux native player. A company also singly responsible for wysiwyg printing. It’s founder had originally figured out modern printing while working at PARC but it didn’t become a consumer reality until he stared Adobe as printing software.
Love them or not; there is some serious history with Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, IBM, Dell and Oracle.
honestly, i think microsoft did a better job with the look of things than apple did. apple’s os looks pretty old in comparison.
Interesting, as one would almost expect Apple to have updated their GUI by now. OSX is what…8 now? They may very well have just found that their user base as a whole does not care for any radical change, and that the continuity of the GUI is what suits them most.
Make me laugh and remind me of the old adage:
“Opinions are like A5$H@13$ … everyone has one”
Flame on GUI people!!!!
Apple stole from Xerox. [GUI]
Microsoft stole from Apple.
Nextstep stole from RISC. [Dock]
Microsoft stole from Apple.
Apple stole from Konfabulator. [Widgets]
Microsoft stole from Apple.
Apple stole from Butler. [Spotlight]
Microsoft stole from Apple.
See the trend here? Apple does all the hard work of stealing from other guys while MS just copies them off!
Stop the whining already..
First off people here say that Apple stole form Xerox without really looking at that it was that Apple supposedly stole. What Xerox had and are almost no comparable other than your basic WIMP concept which Xerox should definitely be lauded for. However Apple made a product that can be used and has been copied numerous time, while Xerox made a proof of concept that they decided to sure other companies for later when they wanted to turn it into a (failed) product. However the main concept of what we consider a desktop were all Apple’s doing.
I guess you can consider that Apple stole Konfabulator, but that software was based on a concept that has been on the Mac platform since pretty much its inception.
Spotlight is another concept that Apple had already had working concepts of on their platform.
For what I have seen, from Windows 7, that Microsoft for the first time tried to apply the ‘KISS’ pinciple.
“Keep It Simple Stupid’, has always been the halmark of Apple, I appreciate MS efforts to get rid of a lot of annoying wizards and meaningless pop-ups and other confusing bells and whistlers or are they still there?