One word

Evan has a bit of a pop at Scoble’s newer, more relaxed attitude to Longhorn in Stop the World. Much as i agree with some of what he says, I couldn’t help grinning at this:

“Apple’s been promising new features in Tiger since June 28th of last year (a full two months before the Great Longhorn Breakup), on the other hand, and I’m fully confident that they’ll deliver. Why? Because, ever since I’ve been a Mac user, they’ve delivered what they’ve promised.

In other words, as I’ve said before: Microsoft talks, Apple ships.”

One word: Copland.  

  • http://www.macandback.org/ Evan DiBiase

    Okay, fair point :-)

    But, honestly, that was quite some time ago. Since I started using OS X in 2001, I’ve seen almost nothing but fulfilled promises from Apple. Since I’ve started paying attention to Longhorn: almost nothing except smoke and mirrors from Microsoft.

  • markd

    Non-sequitur. Copeland was (mis)managed by the previous management team at Apple, entirely supplanted by the New Order when NeXT bought Apple. Since then, Apple has tended to deliver what’s promised.

  • http://technovia.typepad.com Ian M Betteridge

    Ev – yeah, my tongue was fairly firmly in cheek :)

    Microsoft’s big mistake with Longhorn was to overpromise. I don’t think it was really a case of FUD – after all, it’s not like Avalon, WinFS, et al were features that AN Other company was actually offering at the time – but rather that it got led down the path of offering something that the market wasn’t asking for, but that it’s engineers wanted to deliver.

  • nick

    But once Microsoft promised those things — particularly WinFS — then a good section of the clued-up market was quick to say ‘about bloody time’.

    (Perhaps I’m missing something, but Microsoft’s current water-treading reminds me of Netscape’s feature paralysis in the late 90s.)

  • http://cheerleader.yoz.com/ Yoz

    Apple have a much easier time of things now that they’re on a modern, lean OS with a fairly uncluttered API – to get to this they merely had to put in a few years of engineering and throw away the vast majority of backward compatibity. Plus, the number of core hardware configurations that the OS has to run on is still in double figures.

    Microsoft is currently in the process of modernising its aging OS – the kernel is still decent, but the API is a cluttered, unfriendly mess. Hence WinFX, Avalon, .NET etc. However they’re nowhere near the luxuries that Apple have of mostly-similar hardware and few backward-compatibility worries – in fact, it’s about as opposite as you can get. XP SP2 was the first big step in leaving the the past (and the most insecure apps) behind, but they can never ditch backward-compatibility as freely as Apple did.

    But that’s the inside view: from the outside, MS is old and slow, Apple’s doing backflips and providing the agility that the young, hip customers want. The old, big customers – the ones who buy 10,000-seat licences – they’re a different story. They can do without the new fizz and sparkle as long as their ten-year-old accounting apps still work.

    Even so, Microsoft seems to still be suffering from the same over-enthusiastic scheduling problems it had back in ’96 with Cairo. And there’s an even greater danger that when they finally make it to the shiny new future, it may not fully work when they get there, and they’ll lose many of the customers who waited only to see their favourite apps break.

  • http://technovia.typepad.com Ian M Betteridge

    Over-enthusiastic scheduling, a failure to get to grips with an ageing OS, feature-paralysis… sure sounds like a company in trouble. Can Microsoft get itself out of this one?

  • nick

    ;)

    Mr Jobs is not looking for work right now, Ian.

  • http://technovia.typepad.com Ian M Betteridge

    Now THAT would be ironic.