Microsoft said it has been preparing for such a judgment since August. Copies of Word and Office sold before Jan. 11 aren’t affected by the court’s decision. And Microsoft said it has “put the wheels in motion to remove this little-used feature” from versions of Word 2007 and Office 2007 that would be sold after that date.

Microsoft files an appeal in August, which is also when they began preparing for losing the appeal like they knew they would. In other words, they let a four-month bogus appeal run its course solely to give them time to remove offending code and avoid missing a beat when they’re judged to be the thieves they were.

Sure, they need to pay $290M in fines, but Ballmer would say that’s just a rounding error.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

This isn’t copying. It’s identity theft.

I honestly don’t know how the people responsible can look at themselves in the mirror each morning. Surely there are other ways to get into retail without copying every detail from the people you’re constantly accused of copying in the first place.

Nice article on the Microsoft stores.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

According to one leading security research lab, Windows 7 is vulnerable to an astonishing 8 out of 10 viruses it was exposed to during testing.

(via itpro.co.uk)

The author questions the test because no anti-virus software was installed, and new viruses were used to test the exposure. He seemed to think this might not be fair, but I strongly disagree.

This was the perfect way to test Microsoft’s claims that Windows 7 was über secure, hard to crack, etc. They’ve been bragging about security for Vista and Windows 7 for years, yet no one has done the obvious: test them on their own.

It should be obvious that anti-virus software masks the underlying operating system’s vulnerabilities. Such a test only shows how good the AV software — not the OS — is at protecting a PC.

What Sophos’ test proves is that MS was full of it regarding the security of Windows 7; that in point of fact an anti-virus solution is absolutely required to secure your system, because the OS itself is as vulnerable as ever.

Run the same test with a BSD, Linux, Mac, or other *nix system and they’ll kick Windows 7’s ass, and with no third-party solution as a band-aid. That’s because they’re already secure, thank you.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

As it turns out, there’s a process you can use to get a folder on the taskbar, and I did so for some of my common ones. Once you do it a couple times, it’s a pretty simple process, though it’s silly to have to go through such hoops.

Unfortunately, all you can do once the folder is there is click on it to open the folder. That’s it. You cannot see what’s inside via stacks or hierarchical views like on a Mac. You cannot navigate the directory like on a Mac. You cannot spring-load the folder like on a Mac. You cannot launch or view anything from the folder like on a Mac. Bottom line is having a folder on the taskbar saves me one click, and that’s all.

Still, for common folders I’ll take what I can get. Especially since, for all the bragging on Microsoft’s part, Windows 7 still requires too many clicks.

Finally, here’s a quick tip: For a custom look change the shortcut’s icon before you pin it to the taskbar. The file imageres.dll in the System32 directory contains a number of nice icons from which to choose.

So while Windows 7 may not right all of Vista’s wrongs, it is absolutely superior to its predecessor. It has three years of improvements, so it can’t help but be better. But if you hated Vista’s UI, you’re going to hate Windows 7’s. Worse, in fact, because 7 forces you to use the new Start menu and taskbar, with no possibility of reverting to the old behaviour. If your applications didn’t work in Vista, they almost certainly won’t work in 7. Sure, 7 has some virtualization tools to help, but this was always possible in Vista too. If you felt Vista was too big and too slow, well, 7 isn’t going to provide much joy there, either. Marginal improvements, perhaps, but nothing more.

The above quote, from the closing summary, sure doesn’t sound impressive. Still, the entire review (it’s long and detailed) is positive overall.

The reviewer thinks Vista got a bad rap. Even though he agrees Windows 7 is actually “Vista R2″, he likes it a lot.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

…a lithograph of the Mona Lisa is never going to be worth more than the original even if the lithograph is nominally  ”better” because it uses archival quality pigments and has brighter colors. People will always value the real thing more than a high quality copy.

Interesting argument by Chris Seibold that claims the iPhone has stifled innovation because competitors are focusing only on making a knock-off, not on innovating to make something better. This isn’t the iPhone’s or Apple’s fault, and Seibold doesn’t say it is, but there’s some merit to his overall point.

Look at the competition’s ads aimed at the iPhone. They’d have you believe their “innovation” is, for example, using a hardware keyboard. Yet a hardware keyboard runs counter to a hand-held touch device. I wonder how many are used not because it’s a Good Thing, but because they can’t wait for a decent software keyboard to be completed before shipping the product. The Palm Pre sure feels like this.

For another example, look at Android’s fragmenting market of phones with different screens, hardware keyboards, software keyboards, varying UI experiences from handset makers, etc. Google doesn’t have the power (or desire) to prevent this, so it’s touted as a “feature” of the platform being “open”. Yet a fragmented market will limit Android’s overall appeal and success. See Windows Mobile for an example of that. Millions of WinMo units sold, but all so different there’s no UI consistency, and no cohesive entity — like iTunes and the App Store — to make a complete system that breeds customer satisfaction, loyalty, and a disincentive to go elsewhere.

In short, the only “innovation” from iPhone competitors so far has been to copy as much as they can, and then spin what they couldn’t copy as a “feature”.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

On the other hand, Microsoft inherited the Sidekick platform when it purchased Danger. The software giant will launch its own cloud-based OS, Windows Azure, next month. Windows Azure and Microsoft’s other online services are based on a completely different infrastructure than is T-Mobile Sidekick.

Fast work at damage control on the Windows IT Pro site.

Thurrott points out that the “relative number of affected users is low”, and also that Microsoft bought the Sidekick platform — presumably to imply it’s not really their fault. Then, he quickly distances the failed Microsoft infrastructure from an upcoming Microsoft infrastructure that hasn’t failed (yet). Smooth.

Inherited or not, the Sidekick platform ran for years with no issues, and the data was in Microsoft’s charge to protect. Some say they failed to do that. In any case, when you buy a platform it’s your baby, so this is a Microsoft’s screw up no matter how you look at it. Anyone who wouldn’t be a bit more cautious about Azure now isn’t thinking clearly.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

Iolo also says its tests indicated that Windows 7’s startup times, like Vista’s, degrade over time. After several “commonly-used” applications have been installed on a new Windows 7 box, for instance, its boot time — again, as measured by the company — slows to two minutes, 34 seconds, an increase of 64%.

No surprise. All anyone talks about is Windows 7’s new coat of paint, but underneath it’s the same thing as before.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

UPDATE: Kudos to reader Jon T. of Cardiff, Wales, for digging up this quote from Mossberg’s review of Vista:

“After months of testing Vista on multiple computers, new and old, I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced.” — Wall Street Journal, Jan. 18, 2007

“After using pre-release versions of Windows 7 for nine months, and intensively testing the final version for the past month on many different machines, I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced.” — Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2009

An interesting addendum to CNN’s article on what’s wrong with Windows 7. The entire article is worth reading.

Much has been made of Mossberg’s review — including some over-exuberant article headlines — yet he still believes Mac OS X has the edge. The thrust of his review is that Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista. Big deal, we already expected that.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

For many members of the CIO Jury, it’s not a judgment on the performance of the OS itself but rather a recognition of the prohibitive costs involved in such a change.

A nice article because it actually discusses a valid concern for why an organization would not want to switch to Macs.

While numerous studies have shown Macs to be more productive, support costs to be lower, and user satisfaction in general to be much higher, those gains come only after the fact. To get there, a potentially painful bridge must be crossed between Windows and Mac OS. It comes down to the measure of long-term gains vs. short-term headaches. It would be unreasonable for any CIO not to consider this.

We want to think senior management will think through the long haul, but the reality is short-term thinking rules the day, and that’s not always a sin. An expensive switch is hard to justify, especially with stockholders breathing down your neck. Any CIO discussing costs of the switch is at least arguing a point worth considering. It’s when an organization brings up Microsoft talking points, such as security, that I feel they haven’t honestly considered a Mac approach.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

Paul Thurrott will never get over Apple’s great Get a Mac ad campaign. His latest article takes a shot at them while pretending Microsoft somehow got their own ads right.

About a year ago, Microsoft finally began fighting back against the snarky Apple “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” ads…

That would be the highly praised, very successful, brilliantly executed, well-written and multiple award-winning ads. Carry on.

with a series of its own advertisements which highlighted the diversity of the PC market.

Simply dubbed “I’m a PC,” the advertising campaign is still a huge hit, and virtually everyone who sees these ads is taken by how nice they are.

They were never a “hit”. They were mostly ridiculed for missing the fact that the characters in Apple’s ads are a personified “Mac” and “PC”, not actual people labeling themselves one or the other. Poor Microsoft. It’s hard to fight back against that which you don’t understand.

Unlike Apple’s sarcastic, borderline libelous advertising

“Borderline libelous” being exactly the same as “not libelous”. It’s the use of weasel words by Thurrott to appear to call Apple out for doing something they’re not doing.

Now with Windows 7 rising like a phoenix over the horizon…

A rare moment of honestly by Thurrott. He admits Vista burned Microsoft to ashes.

Microsoft is back with a new set of ads, this time based around its next OS. As with its previous ads, the Windows 7 ads are a welcome shot of positive vibes.

He points to the two new ads with 4-year-old Kylie (she’s probably 5 by now). If you haven’t seen them, look here and here.

They’re cute, funny, and relevant.

Cute? Definitely. Kylie is adorable. Funny? Only in that Microsoft thinks we should take OS advice from a kindergartner. Relevant? To what? Certainly not an OS comparison.

The Kylie ads ultimately use pull quotes from various reviews to sell Windows 7. You know, just like movie ads use selective pull quotes from movie reviewers. Problem is, when you actually see the flick you find out it stinks.

And they once again make Apple, and its own ads, look silly by comparison.

Hardly. Microsoft did two things wrong. First, using a child to sell technology is stupid. I’ve written before about Microsoft resorting to using children — who can’t possibly know any better — to hawk their wares. Now they’re at it again, apparently because without Kylie they’ve got nothing. But they’re not selling Kylie, they’re selling Windows 7, which Kylie doesn’t know from the Fisher Price OS.

And for all Thurrott’s claims of “snarky” and “borderline libelous”, where’s his rant about how no kindergartner in existence is searching the Internet for Windows 7 reviews and making slideshows out of pull quotes from those reviews?

Apple uses intelligent writing, wit, and sarcasm, delivered by adults, while focusing on the differences between the two platforms. Microsoft uses bunnies, flowers, unicorns, and a child to spew quotes containing words she can’t pronounce, much less understand. Maybe Microsoft thinks the use of a child’s ignorance is just what they need, but I know how I prefer my technology sold.

Images of the Microsoft’s upcoming phones has leaked. I guess Microsoft feels “old school” about this; that people really want “real” keyboards, but that tide is rapidly turning.

RIM knows it, hence the Storm and now Storm 2. Google knows it, which is why Android has a software keyboard. I believe even Palm knows it, but they couldn’t get a software keyboard ready in time for the Pre/Pixie. (They also couldn’t get desktop software or a decent API developed, but I digress.)

I’ve outlined the differences and advantages between hardware/software keyboards before, and since that time have become even more convinced they’re the only way to go. They simply make too much sense for the user and the manufacturer.

For example, with the 3.0 OS upgrade Apple was able to add a landscape keyboard option to every iPhone owner. Just like that. They’ve also added new keys and shortcuts. Even the Japanese Emoji symbols are available via the App Store. All because of the tremendous flexibility of a software keyboard.

Meanwhile, not having a physical keyboard means the device can be thinner and lighter. It also means it doesn’t change shape when using the keyboard (like the Pre), or sacrifice screen size (like Blackberrys).

The only advantages to physical keyboards are:

• Getting a “touch” phone to market sooner because you don’t write one,
• Satisfying the people used to them who think they can’t switch.

The former is a matter of being late to the party, and in Palm’s case hurt them because the keyboard they’re using is cheap. The latter is a perception that will change as people find a software keyboard is even more usable.

Here’s my prediction: In about three years time the physical keyboard holdouts will be complaining about their lack of choice in the marketplace. All the “cool” phones will be using software keyboards.

Only two stores at first, but one of them happens to be at the mall of my very own Apple Store. In fact, I’m posting from there now. Not sure when the Microsoft Store opens.

By the way, I risked my life taking this photo. OK, not really, but when I was done (I took three shots) a security guard caught up with me telling me this was a no no. He wasn’t snotty, in fact he was cool, but it’s nuts how paranoid we’re getting about people taking pictures any more.

Previously I wrote that the trolls are out for Apple, and to expect more ridiculous articles. Well, who better to supply one than Paul Thurrott, that constant source of Microsoft disinformation and FUD? Occasionally Thurrott reaches a new high in low, and did so with his post on Apple’s “culture of lies”. His ranting in this piece rivals that of Jason Calacanis’ recent nonsensical babbling about Apple; it’s that bad.

So Many Words, So Few That Matter

The only two things worth noting in the entire screed are these:

As I write this, Apple doesn’t quite have a monopoly in any given market

Yep, thanks, that covers Apple.

Microsoft got into antitrust trouble because they behaved in a manner that was illegal, but only for a company that holds monopoly power.

This is Paul’s way of admitting that Microsoft was operating illegally. Though he normally spends most of his time ignoring their history or re-writing it, today he’s coming clean. He added the last bit to setup the real purpose of his piece, which I’ll get to shortly. The bottom line is you can’t abuse a monopoly unless you are a monopoly, and simply becoming a monopoly doesn’t mean you’ll abuse it.

If you read the piece and think the above two quotes aren’t the only ones that matter, I suggest you check your driver’s license to see if your name is Ed Bott, or Randall Kennedy, or Mary Jo Foley, or Rob Enderle, or… well, you get the idea.

Why The Confession?

What it boils down to is that Microsoft is incredibly abusive. The Microsoft Tax was real, stolen code was real, back door deals and threats of retribution were real. There are thousands of pages of sworn testimony and emails from numerous court cases attesting to this. Microsoft is a text-book monopoly abuse case. (Just like past abusive monopolies, when cracks in the armor appeared the founder ran off and began his philanthropy.)

So why is Paul copping to Microsoft’s true history now? Simple. If he claims Apple could become the same thing, maybe he can get the public and government to do what Microsoft and their partners can’t: Put a dent in Apple’s growth and prevent them from stomping most everyone in the marketplace with their superior products.

Apple Abuse?

But to suggest potential abuse by Apple down the road is kind of silly. What are they gonna do?

• Threaten the non-Apple 90% of PC manufacturers that they must bundle iTunes on their PCs or Apple will crush them? Heck, iTunes isn’t even bundled now, customers have to download and install it. There is a bundled media player, but that would be Microsoft’s.
• Sell music tracks with DRM tied only to their own players with no way to defeat it? No, that was Microsoft. Apple never did, and ultimately removed DRM on music altogether.
• App Store rejections? Compared to the ~70,000 apps approved, the percentage is tiny, and many were reconsidered and accepted. Most have shown to be a misunderstanding, or telling only one side of the story, or simple PR. Apple has admitted they’re working on the acceptance process, that’s not abuse.
• Refuse to let iTunes “see” third-party devices? Nope. The devices are seen as external storage free to drag tracks onto. They don’t use Apple’s wonderful “sync” because Apple made that an advantage of their software. Other companies are free to do the same.
• Refuse to let other companies write sync software for their devices? Nonsense. As I’ll discuss later, RIM already has.

Where is the abuse when there are no barriers of entry to compete with Apple? Microsoft’s proven this time and again as they continue to enter contestants (that keep getting clobbered). Google entered the fray with Android and nary a ripple from Apple. RIM made the Storm and Apple couldn’t have cared less. Palm did their Pre and, except for their pirating iTunes software by hacking, Apple doesn’t care. Further, any of these guys can write their own desktop software for their own devices to compete with iTunes any time they want.

The reason companies don’t want to write their own software now is because it takes time and effort, and they’re already so far behind they want to take shortcuts, including hacking into Apple’s good work. Wah! We didn’t have Apple’s foresight and vision, so they must let us use their stuff! It’s like the squealing two little pigs banging on the door of the house of bricks.

“I Know You Are But What Am I?”

For a while now, Microsoft and their press buddies have utilized a campaign to make Apple out to be just like them. They do this because they know they’re hated while Apple is not. Windows 7 is a service pack? Yeah, well so is Snow Leopard. Windows 7 leaves XP users in the dust (upgrade to painful)? Yeah, well Snow Leopard doesn’t work on non-Intel Macs. Windows is strewn with viruses? Hey, the Mac had a Trojan Horse so it’s just the same.

It’s odd that no one at Microsoft questions this strategy. I mean, when the worst insult you can hurl at your competitor is that they’re just like you, it reflects more on you than the competitor. It’s an acknowledgment that you suck, but the competitor rightfully says “No, we’re not like you, but thanks for admitting you suck”.

What Thurrott Really Wants

The real purpose of Thurrott’s piece is to get somebody, anybody, to stop Apple. So he threatens us with the only “weapon” he has, which is to claim Microsoft’s been a tyrant for 20 years and, gee whiz, let’s not let Apple be the same. He admits Apple isn’t there, but apparently Microsoft was so bad that we shouldn’t even wait this time! Let’s stop Apple before they’re guilty of anything. Wow.

There are just a few things wrong with Thurrott’s plea:

• Exclusive phone deals were (and are) commonplace, and he never cared until Apple did it with a vastly superior smartphone, crushing Windows Mobile in the process.
• Zune’s software works with Zunes and not, say, the Palm Pre, but he never cared about this type of software being “open” until Microsoft’s failed while Apple’s remained successful.
• Microsoft’s Plays For Sure partners were completely screwed when the exclusive Zune came out, but he never cared about that.
• Every company is free to compete with Apple with their own software without any retribution from Apple or demands to “knife the baby“. But Thurrott didn’t care that they foolishly chose not to until it was obvious they missed the boat and have a lot of catching up to do. Catching up Thurrott apparently feels won’t happen.
• Even the mighty Google is free to put Google Voice on their own mobile OS (Android) and compete in the marketplace — which Apple reminded them they should do. But Thurrott doesn’t care because, like Google, he knows it’s not compelling enough for people to consider as an alternative to the iPhone.

This is the most ridiculous plea Thurrott has made since he begged those who value “your very livelihood” to band with him in demanding that Microsoft “respond to the challenges”. Well, now we see how they responded. Too bad it’s in the form of shameless rhetoric, not in the market place.

Thurrott’s apologies in the past, and rant of the present, seem to indicate that a free market and competition are foreign to him. He simply can’t imagine any company doing business without either being an illegal bully, or bullied by some other company or government. The whole concept of actually earning your place by making game-changing products that work as expected and are backed with stellar customer service completely eludes him. It eludes Microsoft as well.

Is There No Alternative?

Of course there is. For example, Research in Motion gets it. They stayed true to their successful BlackBerry devices while toying with an iPhone competitor in the Storm. They’ve also brought their own desktop software to the Mac. They didn’t whine or cry like Microsoft or Palm. They’re not trying to hack into Apple’s technology and leach their hard work and foresight. They’re building their own.

Instead of crying for help, they focused on their own core strategies and business plans. It’s clearly paid off; they’ve been as successful — maybe even more so — in the iPhone era as they were before it. And if their new stuff isn’t quite up to snuff yet, at least it’s a start, and they’ll make it better (witness the Storm 2).

But Apple Must Be Evil!

Thurrott’s shameless begging for someone to stop Apple from something he admits they’re not even doing reminds me that there are only two possible reasons for which these types of articles are written:

• To stop Apple, or slow them down, in any manner possible except via the marketplace, where attempts by all comers have failed. In short, the articles are propaganda. Thurrott’s piece, and those of the rest of the Microsoft shill choir, fall into this category.
• Page hits, tied to ego and self-importance. Face it, if you write a “Microsoft is Evil” piece, no one cares. Everyone already knows it; it’s nothing new. But if you write an “Apple is Evil” piece, people flock to it wondering if there’s some smoking gun. Instead, it’s just self-serving FUD, innuendo, and speculation. Arrington’s recent ravings, as well as the aforementioned Calacanis crap, fall into this category.

Both categories contain nothing but garbage.

It was a fine day, so InfoWorld’s Randall C. Kennedy decided to take a nice stroll through the tech neighborhood. I’d say the resulting piece is destined for the link bait Hall of Fame, but I know it’s just the beginning. The launch of new Operating Systems by Microsoft and Apple is too good an event to pass up.

I think analysis of each OS is great, and that an inflammatory headline (“Is Snow Leopard just a cheap Windows 7 knockoff?“) in and of itself does not make for a bad article. However, when you read the thing, and see the outlandish and silly claims made, you know its true purpose. No matter the headline, I’d like thought and reasoning to back it up. The IW piece lacks that.

InfoWorld’s Reasons For The Headline

“Yippee,! Apple finally goes 64-bit — BFD! As a Windows user, I’ve been livin’ la vida 64-bit for more than three years. Vista was the first mainstream desktop OS to deliver a viable 64-bit experience”

Oh please. You mean Microsoft should be rewarded for being unable to bring 64-bit in any manner other than a separate OS? One that requires you to purchase a new license, blow away your existing setup, and start over? This is why there’s a small percentage of people running 64-bit Windows. Microsoft’s 64-bit strategy is so overwhelmingly hostile and user unfriendly that no one bothers.

As for Apple’s implementation not being “fully” 64-bit, spare me. I have an icon in 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate for a 32-bit Internet Explorer, and I run it because some sites don’t play with the 64-bit version. So what’s all this nonsense about a “full” 64-bit system?

That Apple’s 64-bit strategy is vastly superior to Microsoft’s is obvious to anyone who bothers to think it through. The idea that separate OSs make more sense for this is ludicrous.

“This one’s [Exposé in the Dock] a joke, right? Am I to understand that Apple is just getting around to adding this? Microsoft has been offering this type of functionality (aka thumbnail preview)”

Nice of Kennedy to ask if this is a joke, because his argument certainly is. Exposé has been around for years, including the ability to see all of one app’s open windows. Snow Leopard simply adds yet another way to invoke it, in addition to the configurable keyboard, mouse, and gesture options already available. Options that Windows 7 lacks.

Mac OS X also includes Spaces, a higher-level method of organizing windows. In short, Mac OS X Leopard, all by itself, blows Windows 7 away in this regard. Snow Leopard simply increases Apple’s lead.

“So while I’m glad to see Apple finally getting on the ball with its PDF handling (I hear the updated viewer lets you basically do away with the piggish Adobe Reader for most common tasks), I’m still utterly stunned by the fact that this is even an issue.”

Kennedy is bent out of shape about Apple’s Preview enhancements for PDFs. But Preview allowed most Mac users to “do away” with Acrobat the day it was first delivered, that ability is not new to Snow Leopard.

In any case, Leopard allowed for previews of multiple pages in a PDF file (via Quick Look), and enhances that capability in Snow Leopard. Further, it allows for “smart” text selection that I’m looking forward to. Finally, it will be sped up considerably. Given that it already blows past Acrobat, the new speed will truly leave Adobe behind.

“Can you believe the Apple folks used to charge for this thing [QuickTime Pro]? I guess they saw the writing on the wall, what with Microsoft releasing yet another excellent iteration of its free Movie Maker application.”

Comparing QuickTime Pro to Windows Live Movie Maker is nothing more than proof of either ignorance or link baiting. The real comparison (and it’s no contest) is between Movie Maker and iMovie. The latter blows the former away. It’s not even close.

InfoWorld’s Conclusion

“I’ve often referred to Windows 7 as “Vista R2,” an incremental follow-up release that was mostly about righting the wrongs of its predecessor.”

So have lots of people, which is why Microsoft began their campaign to say the same thing about Snow Leopard. Isn’t it odd they can’t think of a decent reason for Windows 7 except that “It’s better than Vista” (how could it be worse?) and “Apple does it, too” (wrong).

“Viewed in these terms, Mac OS X Snow Leopard is more like a service pack: a collection of bug fixes and minor functional enhancements that, quite frankly, should have been in the original release. As such, Snow Leopard is nothing to get all excited about; it’s not worth even the modest “upgrade” price Apple is asking.”

The “service pack” line is right out of Redmond’s talking points memo. I guess since many people think that’s what Windows 7 is, Microsoft put all their big brains together and came up with the “I know you are, but what am I” defense. Brilliant.

My Conclusion

Microsoft displays a certain disdain for what Apple accomplished with Snow Leopard. Their supporters have whined about it for months, and the heat is really on now. As if Microsoft wouldn’t love to refine Windows under the hood. As if Windows doesn’t need refinement under the hood! Get rid of the antiquated registry, get a handle on DLL issues we’ve had for years, remove the bloat, add better security, and don’t require separate versions for 32- and 64-bit. But they can’t. They don’t have the vision, they don’t have the priority, and they don’t have the desire to make things better for their user base.

Finally, though Kennedy’s article is link bait, and doesn’t deserve one, here’s a link. Expect more like this as the Microsoft FUD machine rolls onward. In fact, Paul Thurrott’s SuperSite for Windows has a “Quick Take” on Snow Leopard that’s almost as bad as Kennedy’s. And then there’s Ed Bott’s cherry-picked data that uses the “service pack” meme from the Microsoft playbook. All these articles posted on the same day (8/25); these folks are well-schooled.

Can Mary Jo Foley and the rest of Microsoft’s tech press friends be far behind? More of this is undoubtedly on the way; brace yourselves for some pretty foul stuff.