The other is the original Windows NT, before MS screwed everything up by cracking open the security to attract the gamers. Pretty much by definition, an optimal gaming system allows direct access to hardware, which is also an optimal security vulnerability. I never, BTW, said I wouldn’t crack on MicroSoft myself. The original NT kernel was powerful, flexible, and secure. Alas, the Dick Brasses lost control to the Office products crowd in this case.

Come to think of it, MS-DOS 5.0 was one of the few “version 0″ releases they got right.

MS also (eventually) converted “Plug’n'pray” to a useful Plug & Play interface for Windows back when the Linux propeller-heads were still mounting volumes by hand just to get access to a CD-ROM drive. Don’t even talk to me about removable media like memory sticks.

I’ll also give props to MS for driver support. While one may debate the wisdom of their determination to maintain a high degree of backwards-compatibility, they’ve done a good job, overall.

The difference between you and I is that I can recognize where MS has done well, while also recognizing where they’ve done poorly. I’m not a Windoze-fanboy, nor am I an Apple-sider. Hell, the first micro-computer I owned ran CP/M. I’m still using a white-box system on Windows XP because I sure as HELL was not about to use Vista, but the Apple/Intel systems are too expensive for me. I may finally relent on the Mac Mini, as I am informed that newer versions now have dedicated video memory, instead of using shared system RAM. That’s one of my hot buttons; I refuse to plunk money down for a system that uses system RAM for video memory. Urk!

Sigivald made a good point: MS has busted their butts with respect to real-world usability testing. Too bad they didn’t spend some of that energy, time, and resources to security issues six years ago, but you can’t have everything.

Brian T: I’ll spot you MicroSoft Bob, and raise you MS-DOS 4.0. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit, there. It’s probably the only MS-DOS version I’ve never tried to collect.

Stephen, I agree completely MS was once useful, and that the company may have outlived its usefulness. Please recall in my first comment I posited a parallel between MS and GM.

Brian, saying that ClearType is “just” sub-pixel rendering is like saying that Stevie Ray Vaughn “just” played rock/blues covers. Your linked comparison between MS & Apple implementations underlines the point. MS emphasized readability of on-screen text, while Apple emphasized “preserving the design of the typeface.” SCREW that. I want something I easier on my eyes , and I don’t give a fat rat’s buttocks about the theoretical superiority of a different system when transferred to a different medium. The Apple implementation is (quite likely) esthetically superior, but the MS implementation is just plain easier on the eyes on a screen. The irony is that ClearType was designed to enhance LCD monitors, but it also works wonders on CRT monitors as well.

Segueing back to Stephen’s original post, (now that I think about it) ClearType is an excellent example of MS innovation. It “just works.” But, yes; one may compare MicroSoft to AT&T, GM, or AOL. Anyone remember AOL? Or Compuserve? Or BIX?

Not too long ago, anyone suggesting that GM or Chrysler (two of the biggest auto makers in the world) would go belly-up would have been laughed out of the room. Now, not so much.

These days, MicroSoft is frantically playing defense on multiple security vulnerabilities while Apple smugly highlights the UNIX ancestry of their FreeBSD kernel.

Feh. That’s enough for one post. Both major possibilities irritate me the same way my only two real choices in politics are Democrats and Republicans. And nobody better compare Linux to the Tea Party movement, as the latter is far simpler to comprehend and implement than the former; to which would prefer to compare to (say) Ron Paul or Ralph Nader…

Practical utility trumps aesthetic elegance. …And wasn’t that the issue between Apple’s sub-pixel smoothing vs. MicroSoft’s?…

Larger companies over time become unstable because they start to become like government.

Having used both implementations, I find the Windows version far superior. Also, it offers (or at least used to, as late as 2006) many more customization options. In OS X, it’s either on or off.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html

And if so, isn’t it available in equivalent form in Mac OS X, in varying levels of smoothness?

Apple had to license the technology from Microsoft, according to Wikipedia, but still, my question stands… is it really something you “miss” from Windows because it doesn’t exist elsewhere? I always found that Windows’ subpixel rendering was really invasive and too colorful compared to the Mac’s, which seemed otherwise equally smooth and readable…

Before ClearType was “fully implemented” (whatever Brass meant by that), you had to do some real digging to learn about it. And even then you had to go to a supersecret MS web page, install some very fancy ActiveX components, and then jump through a bunch of IE6 hoops to make it work.

And it was so worth the effort.

I think back in the ’80s and ’90s the industry needed a Microsoft to force workable standards on a market segmented between Apple, Commodore, IBM, Tandy, Atari, etc. Even individual companies made completely incompatible lines (VIC, C64, PET, 128 for Commodore; Apple ][, Apple ///, Mac, Lisa for Apple; etc.).

In a similar vein, we probably once needed an AT&T, too. And although I don’t think either company should be (or in AT&T’s case, should have been) broken up… maybe MS has outlived its usefulness.

Microsoft Bob?

(Wocka wocka wocka!)

The story of the Office 2007 UI and the ribbon comes to mind – they made all those decisions based on real use data (from the opt-in “help us improve office!” popup you get on first run); Paste is that giant button and the first thing on the ribbon by default because it is literally and provably the most used command and the most used button from previous versions.

I think the biggest problem at MS is they have too much inertia and bureaucracy (which is the other side of the coin from not having a single User Experience Monomaniac like Jobs in charge of everything… it’s a risk and a benefit to Apple), which leads (as shown) to too much infighting and NIH syndrome (and plain bureaucratic overhead).

Casey: In that market, I think it’s Google providing the real competition. Android comes close to iPhone-quality UI and has more-or-less equal real functionality … Windows Mobile isn’t even competing.

Microsoft can and does compete in the OS realm, though. Windows 7 is nice, and shows they’re paying much more attention to user experience now.

(Though Windows Backup can’t compete with Time Machine (yet).)

Stephen, those are some interesting quotes from Brass (who does sound like he has some). They would seem to indicate a major hardening of the mental arteries in MS-land; one wonders if they’re the next GM.

I just hope Apple doesn’t fall into the same trap the Republicans did, thinking “those idiots are so lame we don’t even have to try hard; they’ll beat themselves.” The iPad would indicate that Apple hasn’t dropped the metaphorical ball as yet.