News & Views

I was reading one of the many arguments between Windows, OS X, and Linux fans online the other day and came to the realization that all of the current crop of desktop operating systems basically suck in one way or another. None of them are truly secure. None of them have file systems which are bullet proof. None of them can recover gracefully from power loss, hard drive failure, or other modern calamities. All of them suffer from hardware compatibility issues. None of them support multiple processor cores or even multiple threads of execution in any really meaningful way. They are all based on ideas, technologies, and even code bases that are literally decades old now.

Sure, most modern desktop operating systems have been updated regularly. Most have been patched up to support modern hardware as it appears. Most allow drivers to be created which give new hardware access to the system. Most have added on support for modern communication protocols and modern storage systems. But all of the current operating systems have had to add this functionality by tacking new code onto old sub-systems in ever more creative ways.

Perhaps it's time to cut our software links to the 70's and 80's and truly start over. Maybe it's time for a clean slate approach to a modern operating system. In a nutshell, we're still using 20th century desktop operating systems and it's time for a drastic change. Somebody needs to develop a completely new desktop operating system to take us well into the 21st century. It's time for a 21st century OS.

How would one start this process? What should it include?

I say, start with a clean slate. Cast a tiny kernel in stone. Make it read-only to everything. Hell, go one step further and put it in a quick-boot ROM. Boot speeds should never exceed 15 seconds. It's ridiculous to have 8 core processors running at 3+ GHz in modern computers and yet they take 2 full minutes to start up.

Next, virtualize and sandbox every non-kernel process in the entire system. Don't let ANYTHING at any level make changes to the core operating system. Ever. Also, don't let any process change the code or data of any other process. Both should just plain be forbidden and prevented. It should be impossible for little Bobby to do something to the computer that would require reinstalling or reconfiguring anything.

Weave in a secured version of a self-healing file system like ZFS from Sun. Build-in IPv6 with DES-level security from the ground up. Make file, hardware, system, and communications security a required part of the operating system rather than an optional add on. The only way somebody should be able to gain access to the computer is by having the security key in advance. In fact, maybe it's time to put our security keys into hardware, just like our house keys or car keys. Having your key should grant you secured access to your own system whether you are sitting in front of it or sitting at a public computer on the other side of the world.

Next, define a few very strict hardware device protocols, build in support for those few, and frankly don't allow any hardware which does not conform to the specification fully. The era of adding registry keys, installing drivers, and trying to get your devices to work is OVER. Develop one way to talk to devices and if a device doesn't follow the rules, just don't support it period. No drivers. No hacks. No way.

Make the OS both massively parallel and multi-threaded. Create tools which embrace and incorporate both ideas so our future generation 10,000 core CPUs just work from the start. Treat both, GPUs and CPUs as computing resources with a generic way of describing their capabilities to the operating system so that it can route tasks to whatever processor is available which can do the work. The kernel should simply use processors as processors. If you add another one, it should just use it.

Make the OS lean and fast. Make it boot in under 10 seconds, 15 maximum. Give the OS a hardware accelerated GUI and hardware accelerated media capabilities from the start. All media encoding and decoding should be open source and specified in hardware. Keep the GUI SIMPLE and intuitive. It shouldn't require tweaking to make things work. There should be no command line. There shouldn't NEED to be.

Make the OS dirt cheap or free by selling vendors a secure key, development kit, or license for developing compatible hardware. Maybe charge for software development kits. Either way, it needs to be free to end users and perhaps even free to computer makers for it to get adopted or offered as an option as quickly as possible. To ensure that the OS can be given away for free, avoid licensing old crap from the current crop of patent trolls who now sell 20th century OSes. There are great alternatives for everything, even media formats, from open, license-free sources.

Basically, write us a brand-new 21st century OS so we can all stop using the wide variety of crappy, antique, hacked-together, 20th century OSes we are currently stuck with. There really isn't a great OS to be found right now. They all have security issues. They all have hardware problems. They all have kernel panics, system crashes, malware, viruses, and more. A lot of people like me are ready for something totally different and brand new. It's time for a change.

Maybe there needs to be a 21sth Century OS X-Prize! Offer a million dollars to the first person, university, or company to develop an OS and C/C++ compiler which meets all the criteria I listed above. We badly need to find the Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak of THIS generation. We're in a new century. We need the OS of the future and we need it now.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, Predictions, Ubuntu, UI, User Interface, Virtual PC, Vista, Windows, Windows 7

The next version of the iPhone is receiving quite a "buzz" in the media. I think this is because it is rumored to finally fix some of the major omissions that have plagued the iPhone since version 1.0. Users are getting excited that the iPhone will finally live up to the promises made at the original introduction 2 years ago.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I've been quite vocal about the many shortcomings of the original iPhone. These opinions come from a person who has been using the iPhone as his only phone since day one of its original introduction. I like the phone a lot, but it always fell short of the Apple hype engine claims. It has never for a moment been a "revolutionary" communication device. Every feature the iPhone had at its introduction had been available for years from other smart phone makers. In fact, there were/still are a lot of basic features missing which those other phones have had for years. The primary difference was always the simple user interface. Apple made it easier to use those myriad functions. That's evolutionary progress, not revolutionary.

Fast forward two years from that over-hyped introduction and we're now looking forward to the release of the third version of the iPhone. It took two years, but it seems Apple has finally listened to owners and filled in the many missing features we've been requesting literally since day one. In my mind, this latest release finally makes the iPhone equal in features with all of the other smart phones on the market. The easy user interface pushes it over the top. If the rumored feature set of this third iPhone is true, I can finally put away my soap box and agree that this new iPhone will be the best smart phone out there. So, here are the details of what I have seen rumored. (mockup photo from http://www.iphone-ticker.de)

What can we reasonably expect in the third iPhone?

• Increased RAM size. The RAM used for executing programs in the current iPhone is 128MB. This is expected to be doubled to 256MB for the new version. That's a huge improvement.
• Increased performance. The main CPU in the new iPhone is expected to jump to 600MHz clock speed from 400MHz in the current version. There are also other optimizations which might give it an additional boost, so that the total performance gain will be more than 50%.
• Wider range of storage capacities. The new iPhone is expected to come in as many as 4 different storage capacities. They are 4GB, 8GB, 16GB, and 32GB. Folks like me with large audio libraries will finally be able to put their music collection on their iPhone! People who only use the phone for email and browsing will get a price break by buying the smallest capacity unit. Everyone wins.
• Cut and paste. This is a big one that has been missing and requested loudly since the beginning.
• MMS support. This is another one of the most requested missing features. Owners of the new iPhone will finally be able to exchange basic audio/video/photo messages with nearly every other cell phone owner out there. No more logging onto a web site to type in a bizarre code so you can view a message sent to you from a $29 phone. No more embarrassment that those $29 phones can do something your expensive phone can't do.
• Improved Bluetooth support. I think we'll finally see stereo headset support. I also think we'll see Bluetooth keyboard support and possibly Bluetooth printing. I think we'll likely also see tethering support with some artificial limitation attached. Probably the limitation will be that you pay extra for a tether-friendly data plan from AT&T.
• Video recording and simple editing. In order to fully-implement MMS, they needed to be able to record video. So, they wrapped this feature in a simple application to use any time.
• Audio recording. The same note applies for MMS audio recordings. They had to implement it anyway, so they made it available as a new application.
• Improved camera image quality. This comes in the form of better light sensitivity and auto focus functionality built-in. The camera will be less prone to image blur. I wonder if digital image stabilization isn't also an element of this equation. I'm betting on simple face recognition, as well.
• Improved camera resolution. This rumor is still the subject of debate. Many say the new camera will be 3.2MP. I'm not holding my breath on this one, but it does make sense. Frankly, if they just improve the quality of the images from the existing camera, that will go a long way toward making people happy.
• Digital compass. Being able to orient the device in 3D space will be a useful enhancement to GPS positioning abilities. The digital compass application looks pretty cool, too.
• Turn-by-turn navigation. With the digital compass added, all of the hardware is there to do real turn-by-turn navigation. If they use Google Maps, it should be fairly straightforward to implement this. I believe this rumor is true.
• Percentage indicator for battery life. This is a small thing that will be very handy. The existing indicator just isn't accurate enough to be useful. I really hope this one is true.
• Nike+ support and a built-in Nike+ application. This rumor looks like it may be true. I could easily see Nike making a deal with Apple to include it. It's a cool application and it could be a beneficial partnership - selling more product for both companies.
• Downloadable iTunes TV/Movies. This one is a tough call. On the one hand, you have AT&T whining about bandwidth usage. On the other, you have Apple trying to further pump up their highly-profitable iTunes sales. IF this happens, it will likely be limited to WiFi downloads only for a long time.
• Pseudo background application support. This will come in the form of push notifications being available to most applications. It will give applications the feel of background execution, without actually sucking up CPU and battery time. We'll have to wait and see how well this works in reality.
• Further enhancements to Exchange Server compatibility. By this, I mean slight tweaks, not drastic improvements. The iPhone will still lack the extensive configuration capabilities that the Blackberry enjoys, but for most people the iPhone will be more than adequate. Just don't try to change your auto-responder from your iPhone.
• Global search. This was another feature requested by many, but ignored by Steve Jobs. The iPhone owner will finally be able to do what Palm's have done for well over a decade - search through everything on the device from a single search box. It's about time.
• Positioning information will now be available within the browser, in the form of JavaScript classes. This will open up all kinds of cool online services based on where you are standing at that moment. Expect to hear about a lot of cool web sites which take advantage of this shortly after introduction. For example, you could watch your friends move around town in real time on a map at a social networking site. I think Google has already been working on exactly this type of thing.
• Apple logo that lights up. Seriously? Why waste the battery power? Perhaps they plan to simply let the LCD back light bleed through to the logo on the back, but it's supposedly a true rumor. We'll see.

What rumors are probably not true?

• Improved battery life. I'll believe this one when I see it. I don't see how they can add so much functionality, as well as new hardware, while reducing the battery load at the same time. They may claim longer battery life, but I don't think any of us will see it in real world usage. I'd be mostly happy if it just doesn't get any worse.
• Adobe Flash support. As much as people have been asking for this, I think Adobe would tell us if they were ready to introduce it. They haven't said a word. So, I don't think it's coming any time soon. It's a shame because so many web sites don't offer an alternative to their Flash menus. I'm sure not having Flash support will be the main thing I still complain about on this new iPhone.
• Apple TV functionality with HD video support. While I think they will take a stab at letting people download videos and TV to their iPhones using iTunes, I don't think the iPhone will support HD content. It's really pointless to do this until the display can at least come close to rendering it fully. I don't see HD or Apple TV functionality coming to the iPhone for at least a year, if not two.
• Built-in uploading of recorded videos to YouTube. I really think Apple only tolerates YouTube. If there is ANY built-in uploading of videos, it will probably be set to work exclusively with Apple's own (lame) online service. Apple is very inbred when it comes to forcing its products to only work with its services. I do think this ability will appear on the iPhone, just not from Apple.
• HD or FM radio receiver. I can't imagine Apple letting people listen to the radio instead of forcing them to buy songs from iTunes.
• Matte black and matte white finishes. Apple has always been tilted toward glossy and shiny, so I can't imagine they would offer anything in a matte finish. Then again, this is a phone. Maybe they will listen to the complaints of users about scratches and fingerprints and coat it with a protective finish of some sort. We can hope, but I'm not very optimistic about this one.
• Enhanced "super" 3G support. Some are calling it 3.5G+ or 3.75G. I don't think it will make it into this generation of iPhone, but all bets are off on the next version. AT&T is finally beefing up their high speed cellular support and the future looks brighter than it ever has. Now, if only we could get them to lighten up on bandwidth restrictions, we might see mobile to mobile video chat (which has existed forever in the Orient) in our lifetimes. Our communications systems in this country are so primitive in comparison to the rest of the world. It's sad, really.

What rumors are definitely not true?

• Full iChat support integrated. Sure this would be nice, but I doubt we'll see it anytime soon. AT&T has us all by the short hairs when it comes to guarding their bandwidth.
• WiFi draft N support. I don't believe we'll see this. They have only recently embraced draft N support in their desktops and laptops. I'm sure they don't think it's important enough for the iPhone.
• Built-in FM transmitter. Not likely either. There isn't enough space inside the device and it would eat up the battery quicker.
• Front facing camera for video chatting. Not happening because of bandwidth limitations set by AT&T. Maybe in two years, but no way it's happening in this version.
• OLED screen. That would push the price too high and this is one of their few devices where Apple grudgingly acknowledges that price is somewhat important. Until OLEDs are cheaper and being manufactured in sufficient quantities, we won't see them on iPhones. It just isn't realistic. We might see LED backlighting for the LCD display, though. That, I could see happening.
• Any drastic changes to the form factor. The 3rd iPhone will only have minor cosmetic tweaks if anything. It will retain the same basic layout, shape, and dimensions as prior versions.
• Carbon fiber casing. I can't see anyone using carbon fiber for a telephone casing. It is too brittle. The first drop would bust it open. I think the new iPhone will use the same plastic as the 3G with little change to anything.
• Editing of Word and Excel files. With third parties jumping in to fill this void, I don't see Apple wasting the resources to add this ability. There are already a couple of good applications for this task available from iTunes, so they'll make their money that way.

When will we see the new iPhone?

Some of the features mentioned above will appear in version 3.0 of the operating system, which is supposed to be introduced for existing iPhones on June 8, 2009. There are rumors that this upgrade will be sold, not free. Because some of the functions depend on new hardware, users of older iPhones simply won't see some of the new features.

The new iPhone device will appear over a month later, on July 17th, 2009. I'm sure we'll be able to tell what hardware/software made the final cut during the weeks between those two dates. I expect to hear about a lot of first generation iPhone owners finally trading in their phones once the new one hits the shelves. I'm certainly in that category.

Yes, it's a great update. The feature set will finally be mostly complete. But before you start thinking I'm completely content with the rumored abilities of this new iPhone, let me reassure you with the following section:

What would I like to see added next?

• Flash support is the one blindingly obvious item which needs to happen sooner rather than later. Flash may not be an open standard, but it is a de facto standard used on a large number of commercial web sites. Deal with it Apple! Help Adobe create it.
• LED backlighting on the display. It's brighter for sunny days and displays much better color. Even OLED wouldn't be a big improvement if they put LED backlighting on the display.
• WiFi draft N. If they are going to keep limiting large downloads to WiFi only, at least give us decent speed on the WiFi.
• Increased display resolution - but only if it doesn't make everything harder to read for those of us who are getting old. In other words, give us a way to keep the font sizes big enough to see while displaying images or video at the increased resolution.
• Higher resolution camera - but only if the picture quality doesn't suffer in the process. More pixels are useless if the picture is blurry.
• Switch-able LED lighting for video and photo recording in darkened rooms like clubs or restaurants.
• HD video playback. Sure, 720p would be the logical first step, but eventually I'd like to see full 1080p output. Of course, this is probably a long-term goal. More and more hotel rooms have flat panels with HDMI connections. Just add a micro-HDMI port and let me watch my iPhone videos on my hotel room TV in full high definition. Let me display presentations on conference room flat panels, too. Is that a presentation in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
• An SD or even micro SD expansion slot. Sometimes you just want more space for your stuff. Downloading videos will make that even more critical.
• A user-replaceable battery. Even if it's just a back that opens more easily and a battery cable which unplugs, make it replaceable by the end user damn it. NOBODY wants to be without their phone while it gets shipped in for a new battery to be installed. That's retarded.
• Add the ability to edit calendar events, alarms, and contacts from inside iTunes. This is another thing Palm's have had for over a decade. Get with the program Apple.
• Add the ability to drag songs or albums onto your iPhone without creating a damned play list first. Sometimes I just want the music on there to listen to on a whim. I don't need it to be part of a play list.

Yes, you're right. I'm a picky bloke who can always come up with a wish list for any device. The new iPhone will absolutely be a big improvement over previous generations. In fact, if the rumors are true, this could be the best phone out there. But there is always room for improvement.

Summing it up.

In a nutshell, the 3rd iPhone version looks like it will finally fulfill the promise of the original iPhone introduction two years ago. The wide variety of feature shortcomings which held the device back from widespread acceptance will finally be addressed. With these feature and hardware additions, the feature set required to call itself a modern smart phone will finally be nearly complete. Unlike the 3G introduction, which only increased download speed and added a GPS radio, this third version looks like the real "second coming" of the iPhone. It actually looks to be an upgrade worth buying for those of us with first generation iPhones. I'm excited to see how the rumors pan out.

I fully expect iPhone 3 will take off like a rocket after introduction. By this time next year, I'm predicting the already large installed base of iPhones will have tripled and Apple will be doing quite well, indeed, thanks to iPhone and iTunes sales. Currently, if you remove the iPhone, iPod Touch, and their associated iTunes sales increases from Apple's financial numbers, Apple would have done as poorly as the rest of the tech sector or worse. Instead, they have been relatively untouched by the floundering economy. This new version of the iPhone looks like it will further boost Apple's numbers to amazing levels of health. If you have Apple stock, hold onto it. The iPhone's future looks very bright.

Labels: Apple, iPhone, Music, Opinions, OSX, Predictions, UI, User Interface

In case you haven't already heard the uproar, Microsoft has made yet another decision nobody understands. As a follow-on to their largely-ignored Windows Vista, Windows 7 is working its way toward store shelves sometime later this year. Unfortunately, Microsoft has chosen to ignore the public outcry surrounding their Vista version madness. In a decision that shocked many, they announced that they plan to release 6, yes SIX, versions of Windows 7. For those keeping score, that amounts to 5 crippled versions and 1 complete version.

If that marketing department insanity weren't bad enough, the announcement of the most severely crippled version is, in my opinion, specifically-geared toward insulting folks living in less-fortunate countries. Even worse, we lowly consumers won't be allowed to buy the complete version in any store. More on this odd twist later.

Here are the announced versions of Windows 7:

• Windows 7 Starter Edition (for emerging market and netbook users)
• Windows 7 Home Basic (for emerging market customers only)
• Windows 7 Home Premium (the main “Media Center” equivalent)
• Windows 7 Professional (the business SKU for home users and non-enterprise licensees)
• Windows 7 Enterprise (for volume licensees)
• Windows 7 Ultimate (for consumers who want/need business features)

Microsoft says that this lineup was created based on input from users. (Seriously? Anyone believe that?) As proof, they say they came up with a great solution for the many who think there are too many versions. They will only allow you to buy two out of the six versions at retail.

I'm not making that up. That was their "brilliant" solution. The two versions that will be sold at retail are Home Premium and Professional. This means the complete OS (Ultimate) is only available as an upgrade after you buy a crippled version. They seemed so proud of themselves for thinking of this solution, it almost makes me feel guilty, like I'm poking fun at the mentally-impaired, to point out the complete absurdity of it.

Frankly, it sounds to me like somebody with a lot of "pull" at Microsoft is heavily-vested in the "purchase-then-upgrade" model and simply refuses to let it go, no matter how stupid it is. I'd love to know who that idiot is, so I could post the name everywhere. Bill Veghte, Senior Vice President of the Windows business has come out in defense of this plan, so perhaps the buck stops there? Somebody should ask him where the obsession with selling upgrades started.

As you can tell, I have numerous problems and more than a little bitterness regarding this obvious profit-pumping ploy. Perhaps, I should take a moment to elaborate on what bugs me about it.

Here are the top 10 things I hate about this announcement:

1. They are asking consumers who want the complete OS to pay twice in order to get it. That's worse than simply inconvenient.
2. They are starting with a complete OS and removing ever larger portions of it to arbitrarily create half a dozen crippled versions of that OS for the sole purpose of pumping more money out of us later with upgrades.
3. The most heavily-crippled version is an insult to the intended market, considering that even the complete OS will run on the intended equipment without any problem whatsoever.
4. They could sell us the entire complete OS for exactly the same price as the cheapest crippled version and STILL make a hefty profit by reducing the numerous costs associated with selling so many crippled versions.
5. I am insulted by their assumption that all home users do not need encryption or the ability to log onto a domain.
6. I am annoyed by the fact that they feel they can choose which features I need installed on my systems better than I can. Give me everything and I'll make the choices while installing.
7. I am sensitive to manipulation by marketing morons and alarm bells go off when I see somebody intentionally crippling their product to artificially create the "option" of upgrading it later.
8. The assumption that one billion users can be perfectly served by releasing 6 versions is as ridiculous as saying the vast majority of the public can be served by 2. A complete OS will serve more users than either 2 or 6 versions. If their intention really is to serve the needs of the most people, they would be selling one version and letting the individuals decide what to remove.
9. They are lying to my face and I don't like it. Their press release said they listened to users and came up with this solution. I've seen and heard a LOT of users complaining very publicly about the Vista version-overload fiasco. Microsoft ignored us all. Windows 7 is simply Vista marketing mistakes, take two.
10. I am really annoyed that they learned nothing despite the efforts of so many to inform them of the things they did wrong with Vista. I feel like we wasted our collective breath trying to convert a cash-obsessed company run by their marketing department into a modern, consumer-oriented technology company.
11. BONUS reason: Their rip-off approach makes me feel like I walked into one of those cult-like buyers' clubs where high-pressure salespeople continue to insist their prices are better even when you hand them reams of proof that the equipment they sell is both out-of-date and overpriced.

Truth be told, I'm disappointed, frustrated, and angry with Microsoft. I've purchased and used their products for as long as they've existed as a company, including all prior versions of Windows. (Yes, even 1.0 - yuck!) I've owned numerous copies of their developer tools and Office products. I was using Word and Multiplan on MS-DOS before there was an Excel or even Windows. Before Vista came along, their products were always worth the price to me. That has changed. With their rip-off marketing approach to Vista, and now Windows 7, my respect for Microsoft is gone.

Many are asking the question, "What can we really do about big companies like Microsoft who rip us off like this?" Well, there is really only one thing we can do. Don't buy their products. Companies like Microsoft have stockholders. Stockholders get annoyed when the company doesn't make any money. If profits tank, the stockholders and Board of Directors get involved. Then, heads start rolling and drastic changes are made.

Before Vista, Microsoft was a very profitable, steadily-growing company. When Vista was released after 6 years of development, the cold reception it received killed their momentum and created a lot of internal tension. When stockholders started asking for explanations, the quick-thinking management explained it all away as being solely due to 3rd party driver issues.

However, Microsoft completely ignored the second source of public irritation with Vista. They didn't address version madness and the resulting feeling among consumers that Microsoft is trying to rip us off by selling us cripple-ware and then pushing upgrades on us to get the features we really need.

Sure, Windows 7 has the drivers mostly working now, and it includes some great fixes to many Vista shortcomings, but Microsoft still didn't address the version madness. In fact, they made it worse. Not only do they plan to release a bunch of crippled versions, but we can't even buy the complete version. We are forced to buy a crippled version and then pay for an upgrade later. Every time I say that, I shake my head in amazement at their stupidity in coming up with that "solution."

So, why do they have so many versions to begin with? The reality is, it costs them far more to press, package, distribute, maintain, and support 6 different versions of Windows than one. So, why do it? The answer is, they believe they will make more money on the upgrades they sell later. They removed just enough features in each crippled version that they believe everyone will be forced to buy an upgrade at some point in the future.

Personally, I don't believe that's what will actually happen. It didn't happen with Vista. Using that tactic to squeeze a few more dollars from us just pisses people off and makes them look even harder at the variety of excellent modern alternatives to Microsoft's OS.

Here is what I, and many others, believe: If Microsoft sold one complete version, they could charge substantially less for that single version. In fact, if they sold the complete version for the price of the cheapest crippled version, they would likely make more money than they will by pissing people off with their buy-then-upgrade tactics. More people would buy Windows 7. They would buy it sooner. They would buy it at a faster pace. Combine that with the reduced costs of a single version, and you get larger cash flows, bigger profits, and happier stockholders. Unfortunately, they don't see this and are continuing down their obsessive path to nowhere.

While Windows 7 might do better sales numbers than Vista eventually, I still don't see it taking off like it could if they took a more consumer-friendly approach. Think about it. People are now very apprehensive about buying Windows after the way they were treated by Microsoft with Vista. Treating them like that a second time will be far more difficult to repair. Word of mouth killed Vista's momentum. By continuing the version madness of Vista, they have already created a lot of negative buzz before Windows 7 is even released. I feel this is a mistake they may live to regret.

On a more positive note for some consumers, Apple sells one complete version of their OS for one reasonable price, which is what people really want. We all want more for less. With Windows 7 being mostly internal fixes to Vista, and continuing the rip-off, crippled-version, insanity of Vista, I don't see anything at all to stand in the way of Apple's continued climb in market share. More people jumping to Apple's platform, will mean more software and hardware developed for that platform, which will draw even more Apple converts.

So, if you own Apple stock, rejoice. Your future looks bright! With this Windows 7 announcement, Microsoft has, once-again, made it much easier to take away their market share.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, Opinions, Vista, Windows, Windows 7

I’ve been hearing a lot of rumors about Apple possibly introducing a netbook in 2009. After listening to all of the rumors and putting a little intuition and imagination to work, I’ve come up with what I think may be part of that Apple netbook package. I’ll go through the components one by one. (mockup photo by artist Edwin Tofslie)

The GPU: The widely accepted rumor is that the newly-released Imagination Technologies four core PowerVR GPU will be used in the next iPhone. I believe it may actually be targeted at an Apple netbook in order to drive a significantly larger display than what is in the iPhone and iPod Touch while maintaining very low power drain. Plus, it will have plenty of horsepower to view HD iTunes content when being used as a multimedia device.

The CPU: ARM Cortex A9. Again, the chip is something everyone else is targeting as an iPhone candidate. I believe it is headed for an Apple netbook. I believe Apple wants to squeeze amazing battery life from a slim tablet-style netbook and this multi-core chip is powerful enough to do the job while maintaining much better energy efficiency than an Intel Atom.

The OS: Ok, it is a given that it will be OS X based, but I believe it will be a scaled-up version of the iPhone operating system rather than a scaled-down version of the desktop OS. The new OS will possibly be a superset of firmware 3.0. It may even run most of the same applications, considering the CPU and GPU being used. It may have a launcher screen similar to the iPhone/iPod Touch, as well.

The SCREEN: I believe it will be a full-screen multi-touch device, just like the iPhone and iPod Touch, only larger. It may be about the same thickness, while being wider and longer. The keyboard will be software-based with new support for copy/paste and other functions introduced in firmware 3.0. The screen will likely be in the 7-9 inch range with high DPI rating for beautiful images and multimedia content. It won’t be much larger, because thumb typing on a larger screen in landscape mode would prevent you from reaching the middle keys with your thumbs.

The AUDIO: It will have stereo speakers, but primarily be intended for use with headphones or audio out. It will also have a built-in microphone for use with iChat and when using the device as a speakerphone.

The VIDEO: Like the next generation iPhone coming in June, it will have a forward-facing camera hidden behind the screen for use with iChat. It will be able to do high-resolution video chat over a wireless network or lower-resolution video chat over 3G. It will also provide a mini Display Port interface.

The NETWORKING: This machine will have built-in wireless-N networking as well as a built-in, always-on 3G voice and data connection through another Apple contract with ATT.

The BATTERY: Following the trend in all Apple devices, it will not be user swappable. I feel like Apple will shoot for 8+ hours of battery life. It will be lithium-ion based rather than using the newer silver-zinc technology.

The STORAGE: It will probably have 32 GB of memory/storage, like the highest-end iPhone. Much to the irritation of many folks, it may not include USB ports. Their reasoning for not including it will be that the device would be open to easier cracking of the 3G network link if they included USB ports. If you see USB ports, you probably won’t see built-in 3G. Either that, or the 3G won’t be tied to a single vendor.

The REST: Also included will be an accelerometer, GPS, and ambient light sensors. The App Store and iTunes Store will be there. It will sync with Mobile Me. A cloud-based set of simple productivity and media applications will also be included, perhaps iLife Mobile.

The PRICE: This is where folks will likely be most disappointed. I don’t see Apple introducing this machine for any less than $799. It may even be as high as $1199. The large capacitive touch screen, multi-core processors, and lithium-ion battery will keep the price higher than most people want to pay for a netbook. Some will buy it anyway, because it will look great and be very easy to use.

I see this device being called something like “iPad,” “iTouch,” or perhaps “iPad Touch” and being available in late summer for their back-to-school sales push. You heard it here first.

Labels: Apple, iPhone, Opinions, OSX, Predictions, UI, User Interface

I saw a news story on the iLounge some time ago which showed a couple of new capacitive touch screens that available from a company named Host Optical. The 3.2 inch version was destined for the new iPhone 3G, which still left the 2.8 inch screen version unexplained.

My question: Will it be used on a smaller iPod Touch?

Using a 2.8 inch screen on the existing iPhone or iPod Touch would be a bit of a problem because they both include a lot of data capabilities like E-mail and Internet access. This requires the extensive use of an on-screen keyboard. Making such a keyboard significantly smaller would render it fairly useless. So, a simple scaled-down iPhone or iPod Touch seems like a bad idea.

What about a middle device like an iPod Nano Touch?

A Touch version of the Nano would be a different machine than a scaled down Touch. If you think about it, the interface for the Nano is somewhat different than the normal iPod. Its design caters to the limitations of of a much smaller screen. Since a Nano version of the Touch would have a smaller screen, it would also need to deal with those limitations.

So what would be missing in a Nano Touch?

I'm guessing the onscreen keyboard would be absent. I also think the Internet browser, email, and related functionality might be gone. Below a certain screen size, it just becomes ridiculous to try to type or scroll all over a web page. Older generation cell phones proved this. That doesn't mean Apple would eliminate the wireless connection, however. There is a much better use for that.

Some are speculating that the next generation of Touch will be able to sync to your PC wirelessly using Bonjour. Perhaps a Nano Touch would be able to perform this task, as well. It would certainly add to its value and appeal. So if we are correct, this gives us a Nano with a 2.8 inch wide touch screen and wireless sync abilities.

What else might be different about a Nano Touch?

Well, it's the Nano Touch, so it should be priced much lower than a Touch. But unlike the previous Nano, the Nano Touch will almost certainly play video. BAM! That's the defining application for a Nano Touch. This 2.8 inch wide screen display will be perfect for that task and the interface for playing video will fit on a display like that quite nicely. I'm sure it would also make use of "Cover Flow" for selecting media, just like its big brother.

It's a perfect fit and it makes business sense for Apple to do it. Why do I say that?

One big benefit for Apple in making a video-capable Nano is that it provides a lot more potential clients for the iTunes video rental service. If they can keep the price low enough to build a large Nano Touch base, their potential for video rental revenue could skyrocket. Currently, their rental service is still in the early stages of growth. Launching a Nano Touch could make video rentals a real profit center.

This also makes sense from a device limitations standpoint. Any Nano device typically has much less memory than its full-sized brethren. A device with limited memory won't be storing much content locally. This makes a wireless-enabled, wide screen iPod Nano the perfect client for a rental service. It could be wireless, easily pocket-able, cheap, and incredibly easy to use with easy access to any movie you care to watch. At least that's my theory.

SO - Look for the iPod Nano Touch (or Touch Nano?) to appear at Apple retailers sometime before Christmas. :) Tell them Oil Painter Bill sent you to buy one. Maybe they'll give me a commission. LOL

Labels: Apple

I bought a first generation iPhone on the first day of release. Yes, I was one of the poor saps who waited in line for it. Although I like the user interface a lot, many of my old blog readers have seen my reviews listing all of its many shortcomings. Well, Apple has released the new iPhone 3G so it's time to take a look at whether they corrected the biggest problems I found with their first generation. Here is a quick rundown of some of the features I found missing on the original iPhone:

1. No cut/copy/paste. No change on the 3G. It's still missing.

2. No MMS support. No change. Nothing in App Store, either.

3. No JAVA support. Again, no change on either phone.

4. No FLASH support. No change, but there are rumors of it coming out later for both phones.

5. No audio record. Nothing built-in. A third party application is now available for both phones.

6. No video record. Nothing built-in. Third party app coming?

7. Still 16 GB maximum. The 3G has the same capacity as Gen 1. Can you say, "yawn?"

8. No user-replaceable battery. Still must buy an emergency external dongle battery or find another way to recharge it.

9. No memory card slot for expansion. Yet another no-show feature.

10. No stereo Bluetooth. That's right! Bluetooth is still mono on the 3G! It still won't use stereo Bluetooth headsets or even external Bluetooth keyboards.

11. No tethering to laptops. You still can't use the iPhone 3G as a high-speed wireless modem for your laptop. They charge more for the new 3G data connection, but they still limit how you can use it.

12. No To-Do lists. This, and many other handy applications, are now available for both phones in the App Store.

13. No email forwarded as attachments. I haven't tested this one yet, but on the old phone, if somebody forwarded an email from a service like AOL, it was sent as an attachment. The iPhone could not display that attached email. Has anyone tested this yet?

14. No moving you snapped photos into albums/folders. When you take a photo, it goes into "Camera Roll" and there it stays. When you receive a photo in an email, it's the same. You can't move photos you want to keep into a different folder unless you put them on a computer first. It is awkward at best and annoying for certain.

15. Exchange Server access. This was finally added for both phones and I'm pretty happy about it. Unfortunately, they overwrite your personal data with Exchange data when you sync (except for email). The one exception is information you store on a Mobile Me account (for $99 more per year - OUCH!).

16. Contacts search. This was added to both.

17. Desktop icon for Contacts. This was added to both.

18. No voice dialing. Still missing in both phones.

19. No native chat client. Both have this covered now via third party applications.

As you can see, a large number of missing features were still not resolved on the 3G. The few that were resolved, were resolved on both the new phone and the old, and many of those were actually resolved by third parties, not Apple. There are far too many basic cell phone features that are still missing which really should have been included in the original iPhone a year ago. Plus, the 3G service and using Exchange side-by-side with your personal data will cost you lots of extra money every year.

In a nutshell, you get a real GPS and a 3G radio in the new iPhone 3G versus just updating to 2.0 firmware in the the old iPhone. Those are virtually the only differences between a 3G and a Gen 1 iPhone. Tons of basic cell phone features are still missing from both, despite the update. Even worse, if you use the 3G radio, the battery life is significantly shorter than a Gen 1, and that 3G radio is really the main reason you would want to upgrade.

Further, you still can't swap batteries to overcome the new shorter battery life. I don't know about most of you, but the first thing I always did with my previous cell phones was buy a bigger extended-life battery. Even with the new iPhone 3G, this still isn't possible.

Granted, the battery life on the iPhone 3G is better than most 3G phones, but when considering whether to upgrade from a Gen 1 iPhone to a 3G iPhone, you don't really care about other phones. You look at how it compares to what you've been using. The reality is, if you use 3G, your battery life goes down.

It also costs you $10 more per month for the 3G data plan, ($15 if you send and receive under 200 text messages, which most of us do) and you still can't use the 3G iPhone as a modem. Add that $180 per year to the extra $99 per year for Mobile Me if you want separate Exchange Server information and personal information on your device. That extra $279 per year is why many folks say the iPhone is now far more expensive than ever before and far too expensive to be justified. Even if we stay with our Gen 1 iPhones, we have to pay $99 more per year to get the Exchange Server working without overwriting our separate personal data.

To be completely honest, the biggest news for both iPhones is the App Store. Third party software is now easily added to either phone. This fast growing library of software promises to be the real reason for new iPhone owners to pick up an iPhone 3G. On the other hand, the addition of the App Store offers no real incentive for Gen 1 users to upgrade to the new phones. This is because our Gen 1 iPhones can use the same software. There are literally hundreds of applications already available and many more are in the works.

The App Store is, by far, the most exciting thing about owning or purchasing any iPhone right now.

So, getting back to the original question. To upgrade or not? For people like me, who already have a first generation iPhone, I don't see enough justification for the total price of the upgrade. Paying significantly more per month simply to get a faster connection speed and more precise positioning seems just silly to me. Some folks will always buy the latest and greatest, regardless of cost or lack of features. But for me, until I see a lot more storage space added and/or the elimination of the insanely-high monthly price premium, I'll be staying with my trusty old Gen 1 iPhone.

To upgrade or not? For me, the answer is currently "not."

For a bit of fun, check out these C|Net TV video links for the top 5 reasons to love or hate the iPhone 3G.

Labels: Apple, iPhone

As soon as Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer publicly demonstrated some UI concepts for the upcoming Windows 7, I saw comments all over the Internet about how Microsoft had copied the Mac OSX 3D dock. It proved to me, once again, that there are a vast number of victims of the "Jobs Reality Distortion Field" running around on this planet. I like Apple, but come on people. Stop giving them more credit than they have earned. Let's take a look at reality.

Apple didn't invent the 3D dock in OSX Leopard. It is a copy of the 3D Sun Looking Glass dock, which was created earlier than the UI for OSX Leopard. Looking Glass wasn't viewed by the public until 2003, but remember that the pretty 3D dock finally appeared in Leopard in 2007. A Sun programmer (Hideya Kawahara) developed Looking Glass in his spare time. When Sun executives saw the first version, they gave him the full-time job of developing it further. They showed it to the public in 2003, and made it Open Source in 2004. It seemed to fizzle out in 2006. 

Giving Apple credit for inventing the 3D dock shown in the Windows 7 demo is just like believing Apple invented the windowed, mouse-driven OS, which was created by Xerox PARC labs years before Apple copied it in their Mac. If Microsoft did anything, they copied Sun (and Xerox), just like Apple did.

While Apple definitely uses innovative technology in products they create, they rarely invent it. It amazes me when people even forget that portable MP3 players existed for a while before the iPod ever came out. What made the iPod so popular was iTunes. I keep wondering what psychological trickery is involved that keeps making Apple's otherwise intelligent users think Apple invented all of this stuff. Apple innovates by using cool technology invented by others.

Here's another reality that gets overlooked. Microsoft's early work for some of the 3D desktop features of both Vista and Windows 7 was done many years ago. Microsoft has been working on various 3D desktops for almost a decade. For example, "The TaskGallery" was a project they did back in 1999. It allowed users to display normal Windows programs running in "paintings" hanging on the walls of a 3D virtual office environment.

For more reading, head to "Project Looking Glass" and look at the screen shots. Overall, it makes our current UI's look bad. Taken as a whole, it is much more advanced than Windows or even OSX. Actually, you may think you are looking at OSX Leopard on some of the screen shots. It's a shame Looking Glass never took off. Back when I first saw it (2003), I hoped Microsoft would purchase the rights and make it the new Windows standard UI. As usual, Apple beat them to the punch by folding some of the concepts into Leopard. Seeing the demo of Windows 7 with a Looking Glass dock gives me hope that Microsoft may be headed that same direction.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, UI, User Interface, Vista, Windows, Windows 7

Does a tower case with a quad core CPU, 4GB of RAM, and an NVIDIA 8800 cost more if you buy it from Apple instead of Gateway? Absolutely. BUT only if you are just talking about buying the hardware. We all know there is more to a computer purchase than that. When you consider the complete OS, the included software, and the level of service, the price evens out quite a bit.

First of all, Apple includes the complete OS. Adding Vista Ultimate to a PC costs extra, pumping up the price significantly. Apple includes word processing, simple spreadsheet, and a number of other useful applications. Adding this same level of capabilities to a Vista PC will require additional software purchases. Add these costs to the price of the hardware and suddenly the price gap is a lot narrower than it seems at first glance.

Just a couple more observations: I've used both Vista and OSX. I've used identical applications available on both. Both were running on hardware "certified as compatible" and I had zero crashes on either. I also had zero mal-ware infections on either. Both were very stable and easy to use. Both have brain-dead easy installation routines that worked perfectly with supported hardware. Both started up with tutorials for new users. They both just worked for me with no trouble at all.

What about performance though? I'm mostly a Vista user these days, because there is a lot of software not available on Macs. BUT I want to tell everyone OSX just beats the heck out of Vista in one key area: resource footprint. By this, I mean RAM, GPU, and CPU usage. OSX is simply leaner and meaner. With the same CPU, RAM, and GPU in both machines, I saw less RAM and CPU being used in nearly every task I tried and despite using less resources, the OSX system felt more responsive.

I'm guessing this is why an Apple machine can often get away with using less hardware for the same tasks. This is one important difference that nobody ever seems to address for some reason. Instead the groupies say easier, more stable, more secure, etc. None of which is really true in my own experience. For a user like myself, Vista and OSX provide virtually identical levels of stability, security, and ease of use. But, OSX wins hands down on resource usage. You get more bang out of your hardware.

The standard 64 bit address space is another big difference I liked. Using 8 GB of RAM on your motherboard is no problem at all in OSX. Think about that. It needs less RAM but it is able to address more. That's a nice combination if you work with large images and video. More RAM is available for your data.

So what more could you possibly want? I'm glad you asked.

In a word, software. The Mac needs more off-the-shelf software. If you could walk into Best Buy and have the same software choices available for Macs that are available for Windows, it would become impossible for Vista to compete in any identical hardware comparison. OSX would just eat it alive. For now, though, most of us are stuck with Windows because we need that software selection. After all, it is the software that actually lets us do things, not the OS.

The bottom line? Macs may cost more initially if you only look at identical hardware, but including the full OS, and useful basic software levels the playing field on cost. Add in the more efficient use of hardware resources and you end up with an arguably quicker system with more usable RAM. The efficiencies of OSX mean identical hardware isn't truly identical. The Mac gives you more punch on the same hardware. So you are getting more bang for those extra bucks. But this isn't enough for a win. Why not?

The one glaring blemish for the Mac is software availability. If there were more software available, the Mac would win hands-down. As it is, the lack of software ruins any hope of a clean victory for the Mac. If Apple can somehow address this, the Mac will become a clear winner.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, Vista, Windows

Here is a question: If there was a way to evaluate Mac OSX on your current Windows machine for under $150, would you jump at it?

I think for many of us, the answer to that question is a resounding "yes." Could this be a way for Apple to pump up their profits? I honestly think it could. That's why I think Apple should release a boxed version of OSX that runs as a client on Virtual PC SP1.

While I've used OSX for a short duration, I've never had the opportunity to evaluate it as a long-term solution. It seemed promising, but I'm not willing to change out all of the PC's I use daily just because an OS looks "promising." I think many feel the same. On the other hand, running a test copy of an OS in a controlled virtual environment is a safe way to dip our toes in the water. There is no risk or interruption to our daily workflow.

If Apple were to release a "client" version of OSX that ran under Microsoft's Virtual PC for under $150, I'd be one of the first to buy and install it. This would allow those of us with investments in PC's and Windows to take a good long look at OSX to evaluate whether it is a viable replacement over the long term.

Even if many of us who try OSX decide to stay with Windows, Apple will have made easy money off of us and their current users weren't hurt in the process. On the other hand, I think a large number of the folks who try it, may like it enough to switch completely at some point. Either way, this influx of new users could drastically grow Apple's market share and stimulate future development efforts for the platform.

I really think a virtual PC-friendly version of OSX would take minimal resources to implement, since their OS would be running in the controlled environment of a virtual PC. It would also allow Apple to sell its own OS onto the desktops of a lot of Windows users, closing the apparent gap in market share significantly and potentially converting a lot of users in the process.

At this point, Microsoft sells copies of its OS to both Windows AND Mac users via BootCamp, Parallels, etc. This increases Microsoft's market share and further dwarves Apple's share. Putting OSX on Windows could level the playing field and push the market share numbers closer together. It would also make Apple a lot of money.

Are you listening Apple?

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, Virtual PC, Windows

Mary Jo Foley wrote a blog asking what users would change first about Windows' look and feel. I gave it some thought and came up with the UI changes I'd like to see in Windows 7:

----

1. One button "restore OS to basic Windows install." When I buy a new laptop that is loaded with crap-ware, I want to be able to click one utility that removes ALL of it. I want it to get me back to a clean install, with a clean registry, retaining only the drivers necessary to function correctly.

I don't want pop-up, slide-out screen utilities for zooming, scrolling, fogging, misting, configuring, connecting, monitoring, or whatever else the laptop manufacturer thought would be cool. I also don't want a registry cluttered with leftover pieces of the applications that were removed. And I don't want orphaned icons and folders left behind. I just want a brand new system to work like a clean install of Windows. Too much to ask?

2. Quick Launch GROUPS. This is similar to the Apple OSX "stacks" concept. I want to be able to create pop-up menus of tools I use constantly on the quick launch bar, grouped in any way I want. Right now, you can put a folder on Quick Launch and drag shortcuts into it, but it opens a big ugly File Browser. I'd prefer a compact pop-up menu of applications to appear.

3. Quick Boot and Shutdown. I've used Microsoft Virtual PC. It is able to save the state of a running OS and close it pretty quickly. Why can't we do the same with our regular OS? Save the state and close it. Reload the state and go. Perhaps this means Windows 7 needs to be implemented as a virtual OS running on top of a small Virtual Machine kernel?

4. Modularize everything, including the UI. When I am doing nothing but browsing the Internet, there is no reason to be using 2 GB of RAM the entire time due to code dependencies. Also, unless I'm nearly out of RAM, why should the OS be grinding away at my page file on the hard drive? Reducing the RAM and CPU footprint by using modularized code should help with both issues.

5. More intelligence in UAC functionality. Perhaps they could implement a secured, server-based MD5 checksum database for all popular applications so that UAC could check to see if the running application is both valid and on the "safe" list before bothering us. Perhaps this secure server could also be used to potentially hinder invalid licenses of Windows in some way. Maybe that would be incentive enough for Microsoft to consider it.

6. Drag and drop installation. OSX has the right idea on this one. If I download an application "package," I should be able to drag it into the applications folder and have it just work. This idea may be pie in the sky, particularly because I'd like to see the launch shortcuts intelligently place themselves in the proper sub-menu on the Start menu (more on this one later).

7. Ability to prevent desktop icon installation (without aborting software installs). I hate the fact that every application is allowed to put an icon on my desktop once I accept installation of the application. Friendly applications ask permission first, but many others don't. Apple is one of the worst offenders. Every time they update anything on my PC, I have to delete desktop icons. (And don't get me started about them trying to force Safari down my throat!)

8. LESS clutter please. I have a desktop spanning two large flat panels. When I'm mostly running two or three applications, I shouldn't see 30+ items scattered all over my desktop.

Why is this important? When your eye sees something, your brain works on identifying and evaluating it, even when you aren't focused on it. This is part of our ancient self-preservation circuitry from a time when we had to be aware of predators sneaking in from any direction. In modern times, this brain activity only makes you feel tired quicker than necessary.

This is one reason why the Mac UI is so appealing to people. In many cases, they aren't even aware of exactly why they like it better, they just know it is less exhausting to look at for long periods of time. This is also why people feel better about their personal environment after they do a "Spring cleaning" and why real estate agents tell you to de-clutter your home prior to putting it on the market. When viewing a less cluttered environment, one subconsciously feels safer and less agitated.

9. Functional grouping of applications and utilities. Think about what things DO and group them accordingly. For example, why are photo editing (Paint), photo viewing (Photo Viewer), photo browsing (Photo Gallery) spread out in different locations on the Start Menu? Why wouldn't Character Map be grouped with the text editors (WordPad and Notepad) under a text editing group? The arrangement of the included tools currently follows no rhyme or reason.

10. Require software makers to place their software shortcuts in logical places. This is a similar issue to number 9 but covers third-party software development standards. For example, I should NOT have to remember the chip manufacturer's name in order to find my RAID utilities buried in a sub-menu on my Start menu. I should be able to go to the Hard Drive Tools section and find it there. This will make maintaining PCs much easier for corporate IT people and any other folks who help others with their wide variety of computers.

11. Try to make things resemble real-world objects whenever possible. This is yet another old design philosophy Apple has embraced more fully than Microsoft. Perhaps using higher resolution, three-dimensional icons would help with this. (Maybe even animated icons in cases where it makes sense.)

----

Those are my ideas for UI changes but in all honesty, I don't think the UI should be Microsoft's primary focus. While I do think that Vista's Aero Glass appearance is more attractive than XP, making the UI pretty for the sake of pretty doesn't help me get things done faster, easier, or more efficiently. So why waste the programming resources?

Frankly, I think Microsoft should get the internals right before worrying too much about the appearance of Windows 7. I believe modularization and virtualization within a 64 bit space should be the focus on Windows 7 so that they increase backward compatibility and stability while making the OS quicker and more streamlined.

Microsoft should also simplify the licensing. One license should equal one license, period. They should release one version of Windows 7 that includes everything and simply provide installation options for leaving out certain modules, if needed. I repeat: There should be ONE version at a reasonable price. People don't want to worry about whether their version of Windows included something they find they need later. They just want it to always work.

This means there should be no upgrade versions, no 32 bit versions, and most importantly, no odd variety of crippled versions.

They should also offer inexpensive multi-license packs for home users. In my opinion they should charge under $150 for single license boxed Windows 7 and maybe $250 for a 5 license box. This licensing approach is what Apple is doing and people LIKE it. When combined with a smaller, more responsive, resource (CPU & RAM) footprint, this simplified approach to licensing will drastically increase the adoption rate of Windows 7 versus what happened with Vista.

The myriad crippled versions of Vista was just the latest thing to give us that sick feeling in the pit of our stomachs that Microsoft was trying to rip us off. Apple, on the other hand, sells one version of OSX with everything included at a fair price ($129). This makes people feel like Apple is more honest with their customers than Microsoft.

While streamlining the UI might indeed improve the OS experience, I really feel Microsoft needs to pay more attention to how customers feel about them as a company, and how well the OS runs, if they really want to attract users to the next version of Windows.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, UI, User Interface, Windows 7