[tallscot]

Quote

Let's see, a story about Ballmer being forced to testify and tallscot comes out with his typical anti-Apple shot which is essentially unrelated to the topic at hand. How predictable

I do it just to piss you off, Steve. LOL.

Windows PCs with "Vista Capable" but not really being fully capable reminds me of Apple selling Macs with OS X installed that aren't really capable of running OS X well. There were a lot of frustrated Mac users back then. I remember.

[soslack]

Akira, the problem is that MS were busy slapping "Vista Capable" stickers on machines that were clearly NOT capable.

Then, they made even MORE non-capable machines "capable" which is why HP are suing them.

[soslack]

Show us your evidence then.

Better yet, launch a class suit if you're so sure...

[tallscot]

soslack said:

Show us your evidence then.

Better yet, launch a class suit if you're so sure...

Evidence of what? That Apple shipped OS X Macs with only 128 megs of RAM? In 2002, Apple shipped iMacs, eMacs and iBooks with OS X as the default OS but only 128 megs of RAM. In 2003, they shipped eMacs and iBooks with OS X and 128 megs of RAM.

http://lowendmac.com/history/2003.html

[mdawson]

Quote

medopal wrote:

>

Quote

i noticed today if u print "ver" in XP command line, its will give version 5. Means Vista is 6, and 7 on the way.

>

Quote

But if Windows 3.11 is 3, so 95,98,ME are all 4? weird!!

No, it is not weird. Windows 3.x, 95, 98 and Me were a completely different operating system from Windows XP. The former were all MS-DOS with a graphical user interface. Windows XP was an iteration of Windows NT as is Vista.

[mdawson]

Your analogy is quite laughable, tallscot. Apple selling systems with an ?inadequate? amount of RAM, which can be easily remedied with an upgrade, is a far cry from advertising a system to the technologically ignorant masses as being able to run an operating system that it cannot. The labels were not simply placed on Wintel PCs without enough RAM to run Vista, but were instead on systems that would never be able to run anything beyond the most stripped down, useless version of the new OS without the user performing some serious upgrades.

The average computer user may buy ?expandable? PCs?mostly because of the fact that they have been brainwashed into believing that they must have an expandable tower and because the Wintel OEMs do not make anything so they offer next to nothing beyond that form factor?but they will never upgrade their hardware because most are incapable of doing so. If people cannot perform simple internal upgrades, they will not be able to perform the type of more complicated upgrades that would be required to upgrade those falsely labeled systems to run a ?better? version of Vista.

[Brendan_McKinley]

The main cause for the confusion is a result from when Microsoft sold and maintained two completely separate operating systems both called Windows. All versions of the regular version of Windows whether it be 3, 95. 98, & Me were built on top of DOS with the "Windows" in question really being the GUI running on top, this was the operating system sold for the lowest common dominator machines and machines originally designed to run DOS.

However Microsoft was also selling Windows NT. The "NT" by the way originally stood for "New Technology." This operating system although sharing the Windows brand and some similarities with the regular Windows, was based off a completely different OS, which was more advanced than Windows 95, etc. but required more systems resources and had lots of compatibility problems with applications built for DOS and the old WIN16 API, in particular games.

Windows NT therefore became the choice for higher end business machines and workstations, while most home users and cheaper machines used Windows 95, 98, etc. Windows 2000 in reality was Windows NT 5, but for some reason they switched to the year moniker for that version.

However, Microsoft eventually was able to migrate all of its users to the NT code base with XP, which was really a upgraded version of 2000 with consumer features tacked on to it. Hence why XP didn't get a whole version number but rather NT 5.1. Microsoft had never wanted the transition for all its users to NT to take so long, but they were saddled trying to support tons of cheap machines incapable of running a modern OS and a myriad of badly written DOS based applications.

Vista of course was originally going to be a complete clean break back when it was Long Horn, but off course we all know how well that panned out, so instead we got Vista which used the Windows Server 2003 code base as a foundation, but was still certainly different enough to warrant the whole number 6 designation.

Now Windows 7, is still going to be based off the Windows Vista code base, basically just trying to improve Vista rather than try to break a lot of new ground under the hood, and instead work on improving the UI, and optimize performance and stability. It was important that Windows 7 keep the save kernel version of 6 but adding the .1 as a way of reinforcing the idea to developers that everything that works on Vista will continue to work on 7 and that there aren't any big surprises coming to bit them. However from a reference release point of view Windows 7 is the seventh version of Windows NT, and from a marketing perspective 7 is a got choice.

The whole story is way too long to explain here, but although Microsoft's versioning seems confusing on the surface, if you look at it logically it does actually make some sense.

[jpellino]

Except that problem was typically solved with mere RAM. Leopard was the first version of OSX that didn't get perceptibly faster on the same machine with every 3rd level release.

[tallscot]

Quote

Your analogy is quite laughable, tallscot. Apple selling systems with an ?inadequate? amount of RAM, which can be easily remedied with an upgrade, is a far cry from advertising a system to the technologically ignorant masses as being able to run an operating system that it cannot

The ignorant masses that want to buy Vista Home Premium instead of Vista Home Basic and install them on their PCs that came with XP in 2006? LOL

Many PCs can run Vista but without Aero much like many Macs could run OS X but without Quartz Extreme.

OS X was "compatible" with a lot of Macs that didn't have 2X AGP so they couldn't do Quartz Extreme. That feature just didn't work on those Macs. OS X was "compatible" with a lot of Macs that had 128 megs RAM but it was useless because of how slow it was and they couldn't even fire up Classic.

It's very easy to take a desktop PC I bought in 2006 and simply put in a $40 DirectX 9 graphics card and $25 worth of RAM so I can use Vista Premium. I can run Vista on the PC I bought much like I can run OS X on a Mac with 128 megs of RAM without Quartz Extreme. I can easily upgrade my desktop PC to run Ultimate or Premium. I could not and cannot, however, upgrade a Mac to a 2X AGP motherboard to get Quartz Extreme.

Listen, I'm a huge fan of OS X and I think Windows is garbage, but I'm not a hypocrite when it comes to the behaviors and policies of the two multi-billion dollar corporations we are talking about. They both can fudge the truth in their marketing or push the boundaries. Apple's really good at misleading people into thinking Microsoft spends money on advertising but not development (fixing) of Vista. It's funny, but it's not quite truthful.

[Steve_S]

tallscot said:

I do it just to piss you off, Steve. LOL.

Just the opposite actually. I find it highly amusing every time you post something that others get to laugh at. Please continue digging your hole on this topic.

Quote

Windows PCs with "Vista Capable" but not really being fully capable reminds me of Apple selling Macs with OS X installed that aren't really capable of running OS X well. There were a lot of frustrated Mac users back then. I remember.

Well, that's just it. This "Vista Capable" situation may "remind" you that haven't done your laundry for that matter. It's about as relevant as the OS X scenario you're trying to paint.

In other posts on this thread, you made mention of all these angry OS X users? Who are they? Unlike Vista, OS X was an entirely new platform when it first came out. There were power users moving to it until the major applications were ported. Yes, the first OS X was slow, even on fast machines because Apple didn't have a hardware accelerated GUI (Quartz Extreme). In 2002, I remember buying a G4 tower that would dual boot in either OS 9 or OS X. Apple didn't make OS X the default for system purchases right away. In other posts in this thread you seemed to suggest Apple was selling hardware after Jaguar's release that didn't support Quartz extreme. Which Mac was that? The iMac of the day had the sufficient ATI card as I recall. Let's see some details beyond your vague recollections.

[bikdav]

It's hard to say who is going to win here. But, if I had to give a "testimony" in court about this, I'd probably say that it's a situation of operating system creators jumping the gun. They create operating systems that are not good for older equipment, but fail to disclose that. Microsoft VISTA and APPLE OSX are awesome systems in their own unique ways. But, they MUST be used on "appropriate" equipment. Neither MAC OSX or Microsoft Windows Vista made that very clear to us. Yet many users, such as myself, were not really aware of this problem because we bought equipment with these new operating systems already installed on them.

[tallscot]

>Just the opposite actually. I find it highly amusing

Great, I guess I'll just continue to amuse you. From your first post in this thread, I thought you were annoyed.

>This "Vista Capable" situation may "remind" you that haven't done your laundry for that matter. It's about as relevant as the OS X scenario you're trying to paint.

Hmm, Vista installs and runs on PCs without DirectX 9 video cards but won't give you Aero Glass. OS X installs and runs on Macs without AGP 2 but without Quartz Extreme.

versus

Vista installs and runs on PCs without DirectX 9 video cards but won't give you Aero Glass. I have a basket of dirty laundry in my bathroom.

LOL

>In other posts on this thread, you made mention of all these angry OS X users? Who are they?

Bob Stuart
7485 Jackson Street
San Francisco, CA 94131

LOL. Oh, that wasn't a rhetorical question from you?

Listen, Steve, you aren't going to minimize the fact that Apple actually shipped Macs with OS X that only had 128 megs of RAM. This story is about Microsoft having a marketing sticker that said "Vista Capable" for PCs that could run Vista but without Aero Glass. I think actually shipping a computer that is ill-equipped is much worse than a marketing sticker.

Both companies are presenting the bare minimum requirements to run the OS even with those minimum requirements mean some features might not work in the OS.

Quote

In 2002, I remember buying a G4 tower that would dual boot in either OS 9 or OS X. Apple didn't make OS X the default for system purchases right away.

In January of 2002, Apple made OS X the default OS. They sold iMacs, eMacs and iBooks with OS X as the default OS with only 128 megs of RAM in 2002. In 2003, they sold eMacs and iBooks with OS X and 128 megs of RAM.

You couldn't use all the features of OS X on 128 megs of RAM ever (Classic), which is the complaint about Microsoft's "Vista Capable" sticker. You can install Vista and run Vista, but Aero Glass won't work unless you have a compatible video card just like OS X 10.2 won't give you Quartz Extreme on a Mac without 2X AGP.

Quote

In other posts in this thread you seemed to suggest Apple was selling hardware after Jaguar's release that didn't support Quartz extreme.

I didn't make such a claim. As usual, you have to make up things to argue, because you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

No, when Apple started installing OS X 10.2 with Quartz Extreme on their systems they sold, all Macs had 2X AGP.

However, the system requirements for OS X 10.3 to this day states:

Requirements for Mac OS X 10.3
Mac OS X 10.3 works with these Macintosh computers:

Power Mac G5--all models except Power Mac G5 (Early 2005), Power Mac G5 (Late 2005) which use Mac OS X 10.4
Power Mac G4 or Macintosh Server G4--all models
Power Macintosh G3 or Macintosh Server G3 that have built-in USB ports
iMac--all models released in 2004 or earlier
iBook--all models except iBook G4 (Mid 2005) which uses Mac OS X 10.4
PowerBook G4--all models except PowerBook G4 (Double-Layer SD) which uses Mac OS X 10.4
PowerBook G3--Bronze Keyboard models only

So here we have a bunch of Macs where Quartz Extreme won't work, but yet Apple states OS X works with them. How is that better than Microsoft putting a sticker on PCs that will run Vista but without Aero Glass?

As usual, Steve, you blame Microsoft and make excuses for Apple. All hail Apple! Apple can do no wrong! Microsoft is evil! Apple is good! LOL

[tallscot]

Quote

Yet many users, such as myself, were not really aware of this problem because we bought equipment with these new operating systems already installed on them.

Correction, the "Vista Capable" stickers were on PCs shipped with Windows XP in 2006, and they can run Vista, however if they don't have a DirectX 9 video card ($40), they won't get Aero Glass much like a Mac without 2X AGP won't get Quartz Extreme with OS X 10.2 or later.

What's funny is today we have PCs that ship with Vista with disclaimers that they are "XP Capable". LOL

[Steve_S]

tallscot said:

Hmm, Vista installs and runs on PCs without DirectX 9 video cards but won't give you Aero Glass. OS X installs and runs on Macs without AGP 2 but without Quartz Extreme.

versus

Vista installs and runs on PCs without DirectX 9 video cards but won't give you Aero Glass. I have a basket of dirty laundry in my bathroom.

LOL

LOL is right because you're apparently incapable of comprehending the issue here. The current issue is about the "Vista Capable" sticker being put on new computers purchased (after the Vista release). Yet, on the Mac side, you're twisting the story to talk about older Macs that cannot use all of the features of a newer Mac OS X release that comes out well after the hardware is sold. Comparing these two situations is about as relevant as discussing your dirty laundry. They are very different.

Quote

>In other posts on this thread, you made mention of all these angry OS X users? Who are they?

Bob Stuart
7485 Jackson Street
San Francisco, CA 94131

LOL. Oh, that wasn't a rhetorical question from you?

That's about what I expected. You made claims about all of these angry OS X owners that nobody but you seems to remember. For your sake, I was hoping maybe you could point to an angry discussion thread, etc. Of course, didn't actually expect you to come through.

Quote

Listen, Steve, you aren't going to minimize the fact that Apple actually shipped Macs with OS X that only had 128 megs of RAM. This story is about Microsoft having a marketing sticker that said "Vista Capable" for PCs that could run Vista but without Aero Glass. I think actually shipping a computer that is ill-equipped is much worse than a marketing sticker.

Yeah, and? I ran OS X from the beta days forward on an older iMac G3 500mhz with 128MB. That was perfectly fine for common tasks at the time. That machine was never intended to be a power user machine, but it ran internet, office and even Quake III just fine on OS X. That machine was sold well before OS X came out.

Quote

Both companies are presenting the bare minimum requirements to run the OS even with those minimum requirements mean some features might not work in the OS.

LOL! Every software product sold has a minimum requirements label on the box. Everybody also knows what the minimum requirements mean. It means that you need at least this much for the product to even function. That's where the comparison ends. Apple didn't have a program called OS X capable, did it? Apple didn't sell many versions of the same product knowing that the "OS X capable" label would only apply the the cheapest version of the product that nobody buys anyway, did they? No? Then, they are very different situations. Apple's situation is the same as every software product in history. Microsoft's is not. If you don't get this basic fact, they you really have no business discussing the issue.

Quote

You couldn't use all the features of OS X on 128 megs of RAM ever (Classic), which is the complaint about Microsoft's "Vista Capable" sticker.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Again, the old iMac I referenced (which was purchased about a year before the OS X beta came out) was able to use every feature of OS X. Try again. Further, Apple never even had to advertise that it would.

> In other posts in this thread you seemed to suggest Apple was selling hardware after Jaguar's release that didn't support Quartz extreme.

I didn't make such a claim. As usual, you have to make up things to argue, because you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Please, learn how to read. I said "seemed to suggest". Go back and review your posts harping about Quartz extreme. Again, the point of Vista Capable is about buying a new machine with the expectation of running Vista fully. If you're not saying what "you seemed to suggest", then you must be talking about older Macs not being able to run future features of a newer OS X release. In which case, you've only helped demonstrate that Apple's situation is different from Microsoft's situation. Thanks for making the case! ;)

No, when Apple started installing OS X 10.2 with Quartz Extreme on their systems they sold, all Macs had 2X AGP.

Yeah, like I said, thanks for demonstrating that you don't know what your talking about. Clearly Microsoft's case is different from Apples. Buh-bye! ;)