More Nails For Windows Vista's Coffin

Another person has added to the list of reasons that Windows Vista is now looking more like the infamous Windows ME than the future of Microsoft's. I have many posts about Windows Vista (see the tags below) but this is the most important one of them all. Microsoft has turned on itself.

And Dave Jewell in his article Vista-End of the Dream says it's got a simple reason: unmaintainability. I agree with the conclusion, but before reading the article, I have to admit I was highly sceptical about his claim. But, being a code geek myself, I think he may have a point. There are many reasons as I've said before -- even many of the people in Microsoft are opposed to Windows Vista and the disaster it represents.

I want to throw out something in support of Mr. Jewell which he missed upon, and it's important. He mentioned Apple and their multiple releases of new versions of operating systems. That's great. However, he got the logic wrong and that logic supports his arguments. Over the years Apple has totally and completely abandoned their old operating systems and re-written them from the ground up: the biggest and most famous was ditching OS-9 in favour of OS-X -- however it happened when they went from ProDOS to GS/OS which introduced resource-forked files and it also happened between OS-6 and OS-7 when they introduced colour (wow) and multi-tasking where more than one application was actually running at once (multi-finder). This is an oversimplification, but it gives you something to look at.

Apple isn't afraid to throw everything away, tell developers "here's our new path" and then they boldly (and sometimes stupidly, I shall admit) go marching down that path without ever looking to see if anyone is following. Apple has a fantastic success rate with this sort of thing. It's coming soon to the iPod line if you want to know my opinion on the matter. And Apple isn't stupidly building DRM into their entire operating system -- it is built into specific applications which requirement and not shoving it down everyone's throat regardless of the conditions.

Post 300: Microsoft's Arrogance And Stupidity

An interesting article (here) about Windows Vista by Andrew Grygus. It's fitting that my 300th post is yet another tirade against Windows. Actually, it's more my commentary on someone else's tirade. This guy is vehemently anti-Mac and I'm still going to talk about what he had to say because he gets it. Microsoft has gone from bad to worse.

He recounts a famous story where, James Allchin, co-president of Microsoft's Platform Products and Services Group wrote an internal memo saying that Microsoft had lost touch with customer needs and if he didn't work there he'd buy an Apple Macintosh. Allchin retired the day Vista shipped but his memo lives on.

There are many issues with Vista's DRM components and by using them you waive your right to privacy. If you use Vista, Microsoft knows who you are, where you are, and where you computer is physically located. And they can disable your computer. Yes, they can render your computer non-functional if they find it not in compliance. No joke. If you install a driver program and they do not feel it meets the current DRM specification, they can cause Vista to cease to function. You just sold your soul to Microsoft -- aren't you glad? I'm not making this up. Spend some time on Google. I am not anti-PC (yay Linux) but I am vehemently anti-Microsoft and even more anti-Windows. I just don't understand why anyone in his/her right mind would use it.

The answer is often, "we use it at work" -- and that is a reason for you, personally, to use it at work. However, the question is: why would your company allow it? At my office we run an IBM branded AIX based p-series server. Almost our entire company functions using dumb terminals (IBM 3153) connected to this. Do we have some PCs? Yes. Our voice mail system is on an isolated e-machines PC, UPS Worldship runs on another, another that runs QuickBooks (which I am working to make go away), and the Internet station so people can look up stuff on the Internet and run Word and Excel. The last unit will be replaced with a Mac when it expires, but why obsolete something that works. I have a PC laptop but that was for budgetary reasons and it gets maybe 14 or so days of use a year, mostly when I am sent places like China. I won't even go in to the security issues with Windows.

I will, however, ask again why any sane person anywhere on the planet would use a computer when the company that made the operating system can disable your machine? Do you want a company to have that much power over you? Especially when that company is Microsoft?

Seriously, read Andrew Grygus's article here and then James Allchin's internal memo from Microsoft (internal memo) and ask yourself what the hell you think you're doing? There's nothing inherently wrong with an Intel based system* but stick OS-X on it or AIX or Linux, or something that is not Windows. Stop the insanity.

* I prefer PowerPC myself, but that's just me. Geek that I am.


(And that concludes my 300th post. I want to thank my regular readers who subscribe via RSS feed as well as my thousands of itinerant visitors who pass through. Thanks for the e-mails and comments. I like comments.)

Apple, Beatles Label Plan Announcement Today

EMI Group PLC (the Beatles' record Label) said Sunday it planned to unveil "an exciting new digital offering" with computer company Apple., raising expectations that The Beatles' music catalog is about to be made available through Apple's iTunes online music store. Apple's attempts to make the Beatles available on iTunes were hampered by a long-running ongoing trademark dispute with The Beatles' company, Apple Corps. Ltd. Recently, Apple Computer and Apple Music finally resolved their legal feud over use of the apple logo and name.

EMI said it would hold a news conference Monday at its London headquarters with its chief executive, Eric Nicoli, and Apple's CEO Steve Jobs "and a special live performance." The company declined to give any further details.

Apple Corps was founded by the Fab Four in 1968 and is still owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, the widow of John Lennon and the estate of George Harrison.

(305pm add-on: Okay, so they have announced DRM-free downloads for iTunes starting next month. For me, that's a great announcement. EMI deferred on making a Beatles announcement saying they were still working on it for "soon" whenever that may be. From my POV, this is great news. I will now use the iTunes store, and gladly pay extra for DRM-free music. I really didn't use iTunes because I am opposed to DRM. I hate for people to assume I am a criminal which is what DRM does.)

Apple's Steve Jobs Blasts DRM

Today, Steve Jobs, founder of Apple Computer and iTunes and co-creator of all the cool stuff that represents has said that DRM sucks. Yes, he did. Posted it right there on Apple's web site for all to read, including some very unhappy people at record companies. DRM is digital rights management which translates to copy-protected songs. It didn't work for software -- remember the discs you couldn't make archival copies of and never worked right because the protection interfered with the music -- and it won't ultimately work for music. The record companies and RIAA are just too damned stupid to figure it out. The RIAA is just slightly brighter than George Bush, which doesn't say a whole hell of a lot.

Jobs says he only had DRM with iTunes because it was the only way to get labels to sign when it came out, "Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices."

He said he'd get rid of it right now if he could. "Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."

Naturally Microsoft has already come out with a reply to Mr. Jobs and said they like DRM and think it's a good idea. The Zune which rolled with a big emphasis on sharing is now quietly doing away with it.

Cnet news is reporting all about it, and I think there will be fallout from this. I just don't know what it will be. But I am utterly fascinated he'd come out and make such a statement. I'm not a fan of Mr. Jobs, nor am I a detractor. His ego just freaks me out a bit -- it's bigger than anyone's. But on this, he has my wholehearted support.

Another reason to hate Windows Vista

If you read these DRM comments and still install it, you're a nutter. Seriously, you can't play selected CDs, you can't use selected hardware and cables. It's just screwed. Seriously, I am anti-Microsoft and I gladly admit that but these things are even worse than you could imagine. If you must use Windows, at least stick with XP.