The real challenge for Apple & OS X

I've read a number of articles about Vista, its impact or lack of impact on computing.  There have been comments that Vista is either an opportunity or not an opportunity for Apple with its approaching Leopard release.

My theory is that whatever opportunity Vista might have presented for Apple has passed. In spite of what many people think, Apple is the company facing what could become a significant challenge.

Many have said that by default Vista will be very successful.  They're right.  The best way to buy Vista is to get it on a new computer.   Many people will take advantage of the Vista release to get that new computer they want.  All of Microsoft's many partners are going to benefit greatly from an success than Vista will create.

Very few companies other than Apple will benefit from any success that Apple creates with Leopard.

Though I don't have any statistics to back up my guesses, I suspect that a higher percentage of Apple users try upgrades instead of buying new computers.  In my mind this places more pressure on Apple's Leopard software to be successful.

While dedicated Mac users find Macs a much richer environment, most computer users have long ago decided that Windows is good enough.

I don't think Vista has much to worry about from OS X.  Likewise I seriously doubt either OS X or Linux has much to fear from Vista.  Any market share changes are likely to be small.

The bigger challenge for all operating systems is to provide real value in a world where more and more of applications are moving to the web.  I will not pretend that I don't use desktop applications.  I still use Photoshop.  I also still work with Dreamweaver and a handful of other applications.

In spite of that, there are very few things that I could not do through web tools if I wanted to go that direction.  The more these web tools advance, the bigger challenge faced by all operating systems.  As the Mac seems to become more of a closed eco-system,  I would argue that the advancement of web based tools today often helps Linux more than any other operating system.

In this environment with a backdrop of Vista becoming more competition as a digital hub and web tools becoming more powerful, Apple has to continue to develop its tools.

This is an area where Apple has something of a checkered history, mostly because other than iTunes, it seems to be difficult for internal software products at Apple to have a consistent upgrade path.

While I don't expect Windows Vista to shed some of the more annoying Windows habits like telling me what to do all the time, I am looking forward to exploring its bundled tools.  I seriously doubt that MS can beat Apple's bundled applications, but the reality is that most Apple users don't even use all the Apple tools.  My suspicion is that any improvement in Windows as a digital hub will likely be good enough especially when you factor in some great web tools like Picasa Web albums.

You can do so much in a browser these days, that I have to admit that I spend more time there than any other application.  Email would be my next most used application. If I chose to do so, email could also be done in a browser.  Email outsourcing has trigged tremendous advancements in browser based email clients.  The amount of time that I use a word processor,  spreadsheet,  Photoshop, or Dreamweaver has gotten very small, though it still is significant in accomplishing what I need to do.

The integration between the iApps and creating a DVD probably is the biggest hook to Apple for me so that is where I'll see if Microsoft has made progress.  The huge library of photos that I use for my online prints also has kept me Apple centric, but Apple cannot afford to rest on their laurels in iPhoto if they expect people like me to remain with them.

I guess I have finally gotten to the real point of the article.  Shipping an iPhone isn't the challenge that Apple faces.  What Apple really faces once again is the challenge of staying far enough ahead of Microsoft's incremental improvements to remain relevant in the computer world beyond the core of us dedicated Mac users. Apple cannot be just better than Microsoft in the opinion of experts and media analysts, they have to be geometrically better in an easily demonstrable way so that non-Mac users can understand it.

If you'll all think back to the Mac OS when Microsoft first shipped Windows.  There was a huge difference in Apple's favor. Still Microsoft kept plugging away at it until Windows was good enough for the masses.  The differences between the Mac and Windows decreased to the point that explaining why the Mac was better was no longer simple. It became a much more involved conversation than one you could have during an elevator ride.

For the first few years of OS X's existence Apple could have leveraged the huge lead they had in security or user interface.  They chose not to do so, and now Microsoft has closed the gap at least in security and possibly even in user interfaces.

How far has Vista closed the user interface gap that OS X created? Is it just enough to keep the world's computer users happily buying Dells, Sonys, and HPs?  The next few months will tell the tale.

My worry is that Vista may have done just that. It could be good enough to blunt any real advantage that Apple might have even in their upcoming OS X's Leopard release.  That is the real challenge for Apple not getting the iPhone to market.

Whatever thoughts people might have about the iPhone becoming the driving force to the computer part of Apple are probably wrong.  When I think about the key differentiation for Apple, what comes to mind is Photoshop, page layout programs, video and great integration of apps that together make the creation of wonderful media rich documents a snap.  I don't see the iPhone stepping up to that, and if Apple can't keep that core community of creative users happy, they have a huge problem on their hands.  Those users are the coals that have kept the Apple fires burning through some dark times in the past.

As someone already facing the Windows centric world of real estate in my new career, I can only wonder if the new photo tools in Vista will be just enough to make my next upgrade a question mark instead of a sure thing for Apple. 

Fortunately I'm living where I love it, so agonizing over an operating system isn't going to slow me down very much.  There are a few more thoughts on this general subject on my Ocracoke Waves blogger site.

Comments

[Rusty]

This is a most thoughtful and balanced assessment of how the Windows Vista release may affect Apple. I fear you are right. I hope, and this may be wishful thinking, that Leopard has just enough "Wows" when released to grab the tech world's attention away from Vista. Three or 4 more " Time Machine"-like items might do it. All the showmanship on earth won't matter when the product is an OS. As you so brilliantly articulated, these differences MUST BE easily digestible by the public, in a manner clearly differentiated from Vista -- no easy task....

[John Muir]

Indeed, but guess what: the iPhone is not an island and some seriously mind blowing advantages may well be on Apple's side quite soon.

Multi-touch sensitive displays and graphics you can "feel" instead of Windows 2000 tarted up as Puma ... that's what a lot of us are thinking about now. Apple has more of the wow factor in the works right now it seems than ever before.

Meanwhile, back in Vistaville, it's true that Windows is just about all most people think they need. Windows 2000 is fine for most things most places, and has advantages over XP and Vista, though doesn't come OEM'ed with new hardware any more. The key for Apple to grab share is to grab the media spotlight, and the way to do that is with consistent mind blowing new advances in their core technologies.

That OS X is running on the iPhone (in whatever cut down form) and can power the Apple TV and new Airport Extreme base station too ... that is testimony to what sort of power they can weild now. The most portable OS alongside Linux, and the most advanced UI bar none, with Intel power and ARM cool. What's not to like?

Apple are on a good roll right now. It'll still be good times in five years from now in my opinion.

While the article could be right, I think the dynamic is located away from the visual appearance of either.

Basically, I think that the power of the Microsoft hegemony has been stemmed, and while they will certainly continue to be a power, not only will Apple increase their market share, but there is now space for new operating systems to enter the marketplace. Linux is a good starting point for such operating systems, since it is available for very small to very large systems. It just needs a decent GUI (or perhaps something even better) rather than something that is 'almost' as good as Windows or Macintosh planted on top.

Don't forget that the highest market share Apple ever had post 1984 was maybe 25%, and that included the Apple II. PC/MSDOS was adequate for most people until 1991, when Windows 3.1 managed a market share around that of Apple Mac, about 20%. Most DOS people considered both Mac and Windows as eye candy, getting away from what 'real computers' were all about.

After Windows 95, MSDOS was more or less pushed in the background, and W95 took over the 80%+ market share of MS. Windows was easy enough to where people who used it at work wanted it for home, and in a growing consumer market driven by the growing popularity of the Internet, market share rose to 90 and then 95%. The active installed base did not grow at quite that percentage; Apple suffered because their machines were kept in service for 6 years or more, against 2-3 for hardware that ran DOS and Windows.

However, combined with various miscues by Apple management over the late 1990s, this led Apple to be viewed as weak, and if anyone other than a devotee knew anything about Apple it was that they were soon to be buried.

My basic point is that it was this time was the critical one for Apple ... by escaping, and continuing rapid growth, they have escaped the sense of doom that surrounded them in the 1990s. By having the good sense (or good luck) to decide to go with a mature high end operating system, Unix, that had destroyed all comers in 'big computer' OS sweepstakes, they escaped the immature geek culture that had dominated both Apple and MS which insisted that old was bad, and who chased dream OS rather than something to get business done. MS did not escape, going with NT instead, accepting a twenty year development gap between Unix and NT. And in inheriting Jobs from NeXT, Apple regained a focus on the power of design that had led the Apple II and then the Mac to be as successful as they were.

Design is much more powerful than most people (and commentators) appear to think. Design is not about good looks, it is about incorporating knowledge into things. Things that look good, look good because of the overall esthetic of the experience of the thing. Good design is almost always 'simple' design, simple not in what something does, but how this something is done. Ironically, the discipline of having to design around small keyboards and one-button mice probably helped drive the Mac OS by requiring good design.

Regardless of what we geek-folk think, the Macintosh operating system AND applications have always been easier for 'ordinary' folk; people who don't give a hoot about computers, just what they can do with them. However, until recently 'ordinary' people didn't want to do many things that computers did, and when they finally came to do so, they mostly saw Windows doing them, and quite naturally went that way.

In my view the clincher for the eventual decline of the Windows hegemony was the 'virus phase' and the iPod. We can argue till we're blue in the face about the relative merits of Windows and Mac OS, and never reach a resolution. Probably in the abstract there is not a resolution, because better is a contextualised comparative, and there are a lot of contexts in the world.

But no one can deny that using Windows in the ecosystem of the Internet became a misery for the majority of Windows users, particularly those who don't give a hoot, who were correspondingly less able to deal with this mess. Vista may improve this, but it takes years to lose a reputation for misery.

At the same time, Apple, had escaped death by latching on to an OS at least as good as Windows without the misery, for whatever reason. Reasons don't matter here. Then Apple came up with the iPod, even as a latecomer to the MP3 culture, and coupled it with iTunes, and the iPod sold like hotcakes, despite being, by far, one of the most expensive options. This didn't matter. Ordinary people could use it, indeed they enjoyed using it, the best advertising one could hope for. They didn't have to know much more than how to start iTunes and to plug in their iPod. The iPod lacked a lot of options, and this was a strong, not a weak point, as long as it had the right options. Apparently it did.

The survival and blooming of the Mac OS combined with the visibility of a monster success in an area that has visibly changed the culture around us broke the spell of Microsoft as the 900 pound gorilla. Still 900 pounds they were now the three-toed slouth, massive but slow, too slow to protect people from the menace of virii.

In the end, people know about Apple, people own Apple (iPod), and Apple has gained a reputation advantage over MS. Their profile far exceeds their market share. Now market share is all MS has. A good thing for a business, but the argument that 'everyone uses Windows' is a lot less persuasive than it was. Combine this with the driver for future growth, 'ordinary' people, who will increasing see other people doing things they want to do on Macintosh.

[Tom B]

"If you'll all think back to the Mac OS when Microsoft first shipped Windows......"

Disagree. As a user since '89 I think there's MORE difference between Mac and Windows now than in the eighties. The Mac-- as the challenger-- took the big step to jump to UNIX. MSFT, the defender CAN'T afford to. It took them 5 years just to make XP look prettier and tack on 64 bit support (Vista).

[Wes]

Technically, 64 bit support on Windows came with Windows XP x64 which was released the day before Tiger in 2005.

Just a thought: if buying a new computer is the way to move to Vista, an option for Apple to counter Vista might be to "simply" release better (looking) hardware, so that consumers would prefer to buy a new Apple as opposed to a new PC. Exploit the "need" to buy a new computer to their advantage? How they make it perceived to be better than a PC given that they are now using Intel I'll leave for someone else ;-)

[Alan Smith]

the bottom line is that Vista willprobably grab about 9% of the Windows market this year. In addition, most IT professionals are NOT recommending that users buy Vista until they really need to and/or upgrade their computer. Most folks arew not upgrading their computers as quickly as they did a few years back, note the slowdown in the PC industry (except Apple). Also, note that a lot of reviews of Vista compare it to OSX, some even citing taht it is a copy. To be great MS needed to have leapfroggged OSX, not copy it. MS's reputation for being innovative, designing products that customers want, and charging an appropriate price are gone. Note how sensitive Biil Gates was when being interviewed with CNN. I tend to agree with John Muir.

[Marty]

"As a user since '89 I think there's MORE difference between Mac and Windows now than in the eighties."

Hmm... I'd tend to disagree. I have also owned Macs since the venerable Macintosh II back in 1988. I think the author has hit the nail pretty squarely.

Today, for the average user, it's becoming harder to distinguish the differences between Windows and the Mac OS... even with XP, much less Vista. With Vista, the average user will be hard-pressed to name the Mac's advantages.

I'm not saying there are none -- and for those of us who use both platforms regularly, we're glad to go back to using OS X after a couple hours in XP or Vista... but those of us who live in both worlds are not the average user.

The average user will see MS Photo Gallery as the equivalent to iPhoto. The average user will see Microsoft Movie Maker as the equivalent of iMovie, Vista Search is Spotlight, etc... the list goes on.

The fact is, most users won't ever get opportunity to use or play with both systems before making a purchase decision. They'll just look at a feature comparison list, see that Vista has similar features to OS X and not really take the time to evaluate the ease of use differences between the two. They're much more likely to go with "what they know" in order to avoid a learning curve.

The challenge for Apple marketing is that Vista will be "good enough" for most users not to make a platform change. Consumers will look at the aformentioned feature list and think "Vista does everything a Mac does."

Nevermind that many us know that it's the subtle differences that make using the Mac OS (IMO) more pleasant than the alternatives, but the average user doesn't get to experience the differences between the two side by side. Windows, icons and menus work basically the same and much of the user experience is similar when it comes to web browsing, email, and other basic applications.

The whole point of my meandering comment is that the upgrade cycle is built into the psyche of a typical Windows user. As humans (not just Windows users, but all of us), we are lazy and often fear the unknown. Upgrading is the path of least resistance for a Windows user.

That hasn't really changed with Vista and won't change with the release of Leopard.

Apple's biggest marketing effort should target those people who need to buy a new machine for Vista's requirements anyway. They need to find a hook for those people to "try a Mac" instead.

[Johnny Appleseed]

This is why Apple's retail stores will be a critical factor in the Mac's continuing growth. The only way potential switchers will "get it" is with hands on experience.

[ibookfast]

The two biggest variables I think will be security and learning curves as people shop to upgrade to a new machine. Price differences won't be as much of an issue as in the past. If Vista has insecurities half as bad as XP, that of course will benefit Apple. If Apple really drives that home, better security and easier learning curve, their market share will increase slowly but surely.

[Rusty]

"This is why Apple's retail stores will be a critical factor in the Mac's continuing growth. The only way potential switchers will "get it" is with hands on experience."

AMEN

As mentioned above, great design, touch, feel may not be enough unless one has an Apple store nearby, AND decides to hop on in. Apple has a new anti-Vista ad campaign running now, but that may not be enough. Maybe an iPhone, minus the phone -- a cheaper, cell-less video iPod witht the same iPhone form-factor and that incredible screen could be the new hook for switchers -- only time will tell...

[Eleven]

"Also, note that a lot of reviews of Vista compare it to OSX, some even citing taht it is a copy. To be great MS needed to have leapfroggged OSX, not copy it. MS's reputation for being innovative, designing products that customers want, and charging an appropriate price are gone."

At the end of the day though, it doesn't really matter that Vista is a copy of OSX, because as you say, "the bottom line is that Vista will probably grab about 9% of the Windows market this year." Microsoft's position in the market will continue to grow in incremental stages.

In support of this, I agree with Alan Smith's comments, that "The average user will see MS Photo Gallery as the equivalent to iPhoto. The average user will see Microsoft Movie Maker as the equivalent of iMovie, Vista Search is Spotlight, etc... the list goes on.” And so the challenge again lies with Apple to find a way of breaking free of what has (or will become) the norm with Vista. Why would a PC user want to change to Mac when they’re comfortable? The biggest push (and gain) is in the business world.

[rahrens]

Your commentary is missing the point.

Win 3.1 didn't take off because it was "good enough". It took off because Microsoft had locked in the other OEMs into long term contracts that forced users to buy Windows if they wanted a new PC. And there were more than one other PC OEM that Apple was competing against.

In the future? The real difference will be 64 bit vs. 32 bit OSes. Why? Because of the amount of RAM you want to address. A 32 bit OS can only address up to 4 gigs.

But 64 bits can address much more than that.

Windows 64 bit OS cannot run 32 bit apps. But Leopard, coming in Spring (maybe as late as June) will be 64 bit compliant, and will run 32 bit apps in simultaneous emulation.

If Microsoft cannot beat that by around 2008, Vista is toast.

[ocracokewaves]

I was at Apple when Windows 3.1 came out. I can tell you that MS having a graphical user interface even if it wasn't very good, made it harder to sell Macs. As the graphical interface on MS products "improved" it was harder to articulate the difference even though we all know the Mac was better.

I can't think of any computer users that I know other than my son whose life is servers that care about 64 bit apps.

As to user interfaces, I found this quote to be very interesting.

http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/2007/01/running_vista_o.html#more

"I’m especially delighted with Vista’s “glass” Aero interface, which works in all its glory on this machine."

"The OS is dark and handsome. It’s really quite exciting. Like the Zune’s interface, it's artfully done. The beautifully-rendered shadow effects and transparency give Vista a greater “depth” than OS X, which looks a little flat and well… old fashioned in comparison. I know this is because Vista’s new and novel, but it makes OS X look dated."

"There’s a bunch of interface features I wish Apple would copy. Vista’s widgets, called “Gadgets,” are always on top – a vast improvement over having to hit a hotkey to see them."

"Vista’s icons are big and colorful, and frankly, a lot more logical and easy to read than some of OS X’s, like the intelligible iWeb icon."

[rahrens]

"I was at Apple..."

Ok, good for you. But that comment does not negate what I said. It was harder to sell Macs because, when someone went to a store to buy a computer, there were three problems. One, it probably didn't carry Macs. Two, if it did, Macs were, at that time, very much overpriced. Three, see my comment above, you couldn't buy another PC without Windows. None of that had anything to do with Windows 3.1. Of course, throwing the win3.1 UI into it just made it that much harder that is true.

I didn't say people would care about 64 bits, I DID say they will care about being able to use over 4 gigs of RAM. When you go to the store to buy a computer, Mac or PC, and you see that it can hold 16 gigs of RAM, you want it to be able to use all of it, not just the first 4 gigs.

True, most folks don't care about that now. But those who do photo work, video work, or other high intensity apps that use a lot of RAM will care. Perhaps not today, but in the next couple of years as apps take advantage of 64 bit addressing, and they WILL care. So will other folks when they try to upgrade an app and they find out that the only version they can buy is 64 bit and it won't run on Vista's 32 bit version.

Yeah, your quotes sound great. I read some of them too. They're also posted by folks that are already sold on Vista - I've seen some of those posters' comments in the past. I could, if I wish, go to CNet or PCMag and pull off a dozen or more comments by others that aren't impressed at all. So we could have an anecdotal war if we wanted, but that doesn't prove jack. Such things are subjective.

But the fact that eventually, the ability of an OS to be fully 64 bit compliant AND run 32 bit apps will be an important factor in OS choice. It'll just be couched in terms of RAM, not bits, and which apps won't run on which OS.

Couple of things, I tend to not pass judgment on something like Vista until I have used it, so I find some of the comments especially at Cult of Mac very interesting since they are based on someone actually using the product instead of just slamming it as many folks are doing.

When we were trying to sell against the first graphical Windows PCs, Apple management refused to let us even have PCs so we could understand the competition. Some managers like me managed to buy a Windows PC so we could really understand the differences.

I hope Apple is actually paying attention to Vista, since my guess is that even the all knowing Apple might be able to learn a little.

They shouldn't be afraid to out-Microsoft Microsoft by making sure Apple's next release looks good now that the competition has shown its cards.

Part of Apple's failure has always been its corporate policy to ignore the competition as being unworthy of Apple's attention.

I still believe that most computer buyers are very shallow in evaluating computers.

They rarely move out of their comfort zone. If their comfort zone is Microsoft or Dell, HP, or Sony, they will likely never even try a Mac. Most could care less about operating systems.

Now some will try Macs and that's a good thing, but most won't and that will be the limiting factor on Apple's success assuming Steve Jobs still likes computers other than the iPhone. When Steve disappears Apple is hosed no matter how good OS X is.

An Apple employee recently said this to me.

"If Tim (Cook) ever takes over, then Apple is doomed. It may make Spindler's time in that position look good"

If you are in the world of people who are already running 4 gigs of memory, you're in a small group.

I'm pretty geeky and I only have one machine with 2 gigs or ram.

The one thing I know about MS is that they will keep banging on something until it is good enough for their customers. While I'm sure they will have plenty of problems with the Vista upgrade, they have even more money than Apple to throw at the problem. MS does have a reputation of at least trying to take customer feedback so I wouldn't count them out.

It's hard to say what will eventually matter the most, MS getting it right or people buying Vista in the hopes that by buying it, MS will stop advertising it.

I hear MS is spending one half of a billion dollars advertising Vista.

It's going to take some cleverness for Apple to stand out during the media onslaught. I don't think anyone ever said that MS out engineered Apple, but plenty have said that MS out marketed Apple.

They were right.

[rahrens]

There's no doubt that Apple has always been corporately arrogant. (if there is such a term) Your anecdote doesn't surprise me, and I've been an Apple customer for twenty years.

Comfort zones don't always help. When as many people are having as much trouble with malware as are today, that comfortable zone can get mighty small. Hence the fact that 50% of people that bought Macs last year did so as first time Apple customers. That indicates to me that those comfort zones really are shrinking.

I didn't say that there were that many people using 4 gigs. I said that as apps get to the point where they need more RAM and are being written to take advantage of that higher amount available on modern computers, that they will then begin to care. It happened in the past, and it'll happen again.

The manufacturer of the OS that is positioned to take advantage of that will reap the benefits. The one that doesn't will lose.

I don't propose or predict that Microsoft will die anytime soon. What I do predict is that in the next few years, as computers are built with 64 bit processors, capable of higher amounts of RAM, and the RAM itself gets cheaper, if Microsoft doesn't issue a service pack to Windows 64 bit version that allows it to run 32 bit apps in emulation, as Mac OS X does, they will find themselves losing customers as people discover that Windows 32 bit compatible software won't run on the 64 bit version of Windows. Not everybody will be running pure 64 bit apps. Most will have one or two apps that need 64 bit, but the rest will be legacy 32 bit versions.

This article makes it sound as though Apple is competing with Vista using Tiger. Yes, comparing those two is very close, and some folks may prefer the Vista candy if they can afford the high end.

But in just a few months, Apple will release Leopard, which by all reports, will definitely outshine Vista by a wide margin. (and not just in eye candy)

At this point, I agree with you on the issue of advertising. Apple does not have a good record in its advertising efforts in the past, although their recent offerings get a lot of positive comments.

Hopefully, they will advertise Leopard better and extend those efforts to pushing their computer lines, too.

[Andrew]

I believe the best way for Apple to take advantage of vista, is to attract existing M$ users who are upgrading from xp to vista.

People considering upgrading from xp to vista are likely to purchase a new computer, because they will need something powerful enough to run vista.

Apple should be trying to attract them to buy a Mac, especially after they bring Leopard out, because the will be able to market their Mac as "Vista ready".

Leopard will have BootCamp built into the operating system, so anyone who buys a Mac, is in effect buying a windows pc (if they are prepared to purchase a copy of vista).

Apple has a HUGE advantage over micro$oft in that they do not allow anyone else to use their OS, while micro$oft on the other hand allow anyone to make computers which run their OS.

This means that (legally) you can run both OSX and vista on a Mac, but only vista on a pc.

For the first time since the advent of the IBM PC, Apple has in effect become the "UNIVERSAL" machine, i.e. if you get a Mac, you are buying what everyone else is running because you can run either OSX or vista.

Of course, people will also be able to load OSX, onto their pc's, but not legally. So you will start to see big businesses and government departments moving to the Mac platform, because it is the universal computer, and therefore a safe option.

micro$oft have all of a sudden lost their huge advantage of being the universal machine.

So to summarise, Apple should grab the opportunity of the upcoming hardware upgrade of windoze users, by marketing Apple as "Vista ready" and of Apple as being the new UNIVERSAL computer.

[Tom]

One interesting thing about the Windows-vs.-OS X question is how it'll look going forward in the next five-plus years.

OK, Vista may match some of what Tiger had. And Leopard may not be a giant leap over Tiger (though this is not known for sure!).

But the game doesn't end there. Apple will most likely release new cats every 18 months or so -- probably three or four more of them before Microsoft manages to extrude another major OS.

Windows is pretty much as good as it is going to get until 2012 or later. How much room is there for Apple to improve OS X over its next few iterations? How many major iLife versions can it release in the interim? I'd say plenty.

Apple's main OS advantage at this point is the ability of its real artists to ship.

[Bill McGonigle]

There's one thing to take into consideration - Apple is more nimble than Microsoft and will break things if they think it's better. Let's face it. Mac OS X 10.0 to 10.2 were a bit shakey. 10.3 was stable, 10.4 explored new features but is still a bit unstable, even now (yes, I'm a user). 10.5 really looks so far like it's going to be the 'done' Mac OS X. And that's going to be a good springboard for things they do next year and the year after. Especially with OSX running on a phone they're going to start to care about performance since you can't throw a quad 3GHz at it anymore. In the end, it's going to be a matter of if they bother to communicate these advances to anybody but us, the choir, and if you can walk into Sam's Club and buy a Mac.

Hey, thanks for the links to your new business, and best of luck with it. Ocracoke Waves, eh? We wound up there last year in an effort to escape the urban hell we found on the north end of the Outer Banks, and I have to say it was the best day-at-the-beach we've ever had. Here's an Ocracoke Wave comin' at 'ya: http://pictures.mcgonigle.us/main.php/v/Emma/2006/june/P1010219.jpg.html
.

[ocracokewaves]

Nice wave from the beach. Someone was having a very good time.

Yes the northern Outer Banks are pretty close to sinking under their own weight.

I have a long history with Ocracoke and was actually camping on Ocracoke when the Apollo 11 astronauts stepped on the moon. I had to leave the campground and check into the only motel on Ocracoke at the time in order to catch the televised coverage.

We actually considered Hatteras or Ocracoke for our second home, but decided that Ocracoke with only one restaurant open year round might be a little isolated.

The best secret on the east coast is the Crystal Coast which has something for everyone.

Cape Lookout which is part of the Southern Outer Banks or SOBX, is 56 miles long and accessible only by boats. Some of the purest water on the east is around Cape Lookout because the marshes haven't been destroyed.

Cape Lookout is the way the Outer Banks were before people decided ocean front homes were the only way to enjoy the beach. Thanks goodness for North Carolina's law which make sure the beach is accessible to everyone.

You might enjoy this post. It was my best day on the beach ever.

http://viewfromthemountain.typepad.com/david_sobotta_weblog/2005/06/the_best_twenty.html

It will be interesting to see if Apple steps up to the opportunity that they have. I have been told that the DRM scheme in Vista is driving many federal customers to consider either Linux or Mac OS X. This is the second time federal customers have come banging on Apple's doors. The last time Apple's executives gave the opportunity only lip service. Maybe they will do better this time.