Bill Gates Brags About Vista, Reacts to Apple's Latest Ads 891
fr8_liner writes "In an unusually candid interview with Newsweek Bill Gates lays it all on the line, bragging about the benefits of Vista, ragging on Apple for their 'I'm a Mac' ads, and claiming primacy in a number of features shared by Vista and OSX. Specifically, it is Mr. Gates' opinion that the Apple adverts are misleading if not untruthful. He makes the claim that 'security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.' The interview also touches on the future of Microsoft and Operating systems, and some of the company's plans for internet-based computing."
It may be true but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well, of course he's saying that. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have. They exist. (Most of) The exploits themselves would take a phenomenal amount of knowledge about the entire underlying OS to turn them into a full-fledged rootkit installation exploit but they do exist.
> When somebody comes to us [after discovering a vulnerability] we've got [a fix] before there is any exploit
Bill. I thought you were an uber-hacker. You should know better. This is only true if they come to you with the vulnerability before they've written the full-fledged exploit.
> The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.
This statement is borderline libelous. Just the facts, please.
He is right! (Score:1, Interesting)
There is no way we could slow down the exploits for windows to the rate of once per month.
Bill is simply proving to the world that he really doesn't know squat about microsoft products and the reality of what IT is anymore. (as if he knew to begin with.... He's a genius salesman, he never knew "computers" like people claim for him.)
Is he on crack, again? (Score:1, Interesting)
Do I think Mac is a better OS than Windows? Trick question...every OS has its place for the people that use it. Use what you like and what you're comfortable with. If your OS is getting in your way, you're using the wrong OS. (Reasons why Linux still sits in a relatively unused 20GB partition on my HDD)
Not a fan of the ads (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that these ads might offend Windows users instead of getting them to switch to the cool side. These ads do not show the strength of Macs. These focus more on insulting Windows based PCs.
Moreover, don't know why, but I've always felt that any company that really has superior products doesn't have to attack the competition this way. In fact, through these ads, Apple has lost a little respect in my eyes, if nothing else.
ps. I know that writing something against Apple might not go very well with my Karma, though
Condensed version... (Score:4, Interesting)
2. I can't believe how apple is lying about being superior.
3. In the future we'll lock in customers by offering our applications as services and by storing the user's data on our servers.
Re:upgrading (Score:5, Interesting)
It might have been a large machine when it was purchased, but it wasn't all that unusual for a Mac. It might not be the fastest computer but it will run the OS faster than it ran the OS it came with (or any other since).
Let's see you run Vista on a 7-year-old Dell.
Very nice for Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Scared (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't seen Bill Gates this scared of Apple/Mac since the ramp up to Windows 3.x. Perhaps not coincidentally, I saw this [amazon.com] pointed out earlier today.
I can't imagine with his wealth and the importance of what the Gates Foundation can be doing why he bothers to show up to work at Microsoft anymore. You'd think he'd have graduated from that position a while ago.
Is Gates wrong, or lying? (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, Bill, Apple hasn't had to fix DLL hell, and processes run by a user blowing away system things, because they didn't build those problems in in the first place. They didn't have to block open ports with vulnerable services listening on the by default, because they're not _open_ by default. And so on. Next?
Question: How about the implication that you need surgery to upgrade? Well, certainly we've done a better job letting you upgrade on the hardware than our competitors have done.
How so, Bill? What are the hardware requirements for your new OS? How many 5 year old boxes, or even 3 year old boxes, meet that?
You can choose to buy a new machine, or you can choose to do an upgrade. And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say? Does honesty matter in these things, or if you're really cool, that means you get to be a lying person whenever you feel like it? There's not even the slightest shred of truth to it.
So Bill is saying, that there's no truth to the statement that you need to make hardware changes if you want to upgrade to vista. NO truth to it.
Tell that to my inlaws; they'll need a new box entirely.
I mean, it's fascinating, maybe we shouldn't have showed so publicly the stuff we were doing, because we knew how long the new security base was going to take us to get done. Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
OK Bill, show me the figures. Show me a total exploit on OSX. Now, show me 365 of them for each year it's been out. Back up your figures or be shown to be the liar you are.
I just can't keep going through this, I think that one says it all about the guy's outright lies, and/or complete lack of clue. So, windows fanbois, is he lying, or is he clueless?
Nebula Award Candidate (Score:3, Interesting)
Last I checked, being dramatic in an interview (though I really felt like this was more of a press release) has absolutely no effect on code security. Your code base? As far as the Windows code base (past, present & I'll bet future), I have one comment: "All your bases belong to us".
Re:upgrading (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell that to anyone who's been running an OS9-based G4, who then upgrades to the latest version of OSX.
You're comparing OSX to itself. It's like saying Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows XP SP1. That's not what we're talking about; we're talking about major OS upgrades. The Mac OS existed before OSX, and it wasn't very long ago in the grand scheme of things. The last version of OS9 was released in December of 2001. I don't know about you, but I've got two separate PC's that were originally built long before 2002, and my wife's laptop dates to about that period also.
Upgrading from OS9 to any version of OSX can be *painful* unless you have upgraded your computer. OSX is notoriously memory-hungry (as is Vista), and it requires a graphics card with decent 3D capabilities to really shine (also like Vista).
I think the point made was valid - Apple themselves seem to be assuming that all of their customers bought OSX-based Macs, which means they either tossed out their old Macs or they're n00bs. Otherwise, they couldn't *possibly* expect anyone to update from OS9 to OSX without at least a RAM upgrade, probably a video card upgrade and probably a hard drive upgrade. So it's a little disingenuous of them to suggest that this is unique to the PC world.
You try running OSX with 256MB of RAM, which was a high-end machine back in 2001.
Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
You call that an elevator pitch? (Score:5, Interesting)
NEWSWEEK: If one of our readers confronted you in a CompUSA and said, "Bill, why upgrade to Vista?" what would be your elevator pitch?
Bill Gates: The most effective thing would be if I could sit down with them and just take them through the new look for a couple of minutes, show them the Sidebar, show them the way the search lets you go through lots of things, including lots of photos. Set up a parental control. And then I might edit a high-definition movie and make a little DVD that's got photos. As I went through, they'd think, "Wow, is that something I could use, would that make a difference for me?"
I'm a developer, but even I know the sales-jargon phrase elevator pitch [wikipedia.org]. I don't know many 30-second elevator rides that afford a chance to sit down with someone for a couple of minutes. They must have really nicely furnished, though slow, elevators in Redmond. (Wow, is that allegorical to Vista, or what? ;-)
Anyway, there is no way on God's green earth that Bill Gates doesn't know what "elevator pitch" means. So the answer really is, no, there is not a quick and compelling explanation for why one should upgrade to Vista. Instead, there is a long, laborious demo that ends in a rhetorical question about whether there's anything useful.
To which the answer is probably, "No."
Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
The point, of course, is that it takes being the kind of person that wants a C++ GUI programming guide to actually enjoy and really understand Windows.
The "home movie" comparisons where the shapely woman is the mac one and the ugly unshaven guy in drag is from the PC is just dumb.
Easy to say, but I defy you to make a movie in MovieMaker that looks anything close to as good as one made in iMovie. Have you even used iMovie?
The PC going in for surgery is another joke. At least he PC CAN be upgraded instead of simply requiring replacement for a major OS update.
Any Mac made in the last five years can upgrade to Tiger without more than a memory upgrade and actually run many things faster. I speak from personal experience on this and the iMac I had was actually six years old. The point was that you don't *need* a hardware upgrade to upgrade the OS.
When you call someone a liar you need to provide evidence to that effect.
Re:upgrading (Score:5, Interesting)
So... is your argument is that Apple should have made your computer slower, or that Apple should have somehow caused your PCI clot to become a AGP slot using software only?
And since then there have been a number of changes in this sub-system. Each time Apple has allowed older computers to continue running they way they were, and allowed newer computers to be faster with a very few extra eye-candy touches (like a rotating cube). They have not created distinctly different functionality (yet). Vista does go a little further down this road, and there is a chance that 10.5 will too with CoreAnimation (I have no non-public information on this: pure speculation).
Re:4 TEH WIN! (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't seen Gates make comments like this in a long time. I'm glad the public finally gets to see what an asshole he is. Seriously, he's known for cussing and swearing in meetings, and he even once said he'd rather "piss on" OpenStep back in the 90s. In the early 90s, he told his wife he had more power than the President (she kicked him in the leg for it). A very arrogant guy.
Jobs is arrogant and defensive too, but at least you can understand why given what happened between Apple and Microsoft in the 80s.
My experience is different. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't believe you. Well... that's not really true. I think your Dell needs a good tuning.
Regardless, I have in my previous life been on the front lines of Macintosh support, all the way back to replacing endless numbers of power boards in the old beige Mac Plus's. I think I've still got my certificates somewhere. I never saw a performance increase from an OS upgrade. Admittedly the most recent years are out of my experience, as I moved on from support before OS X was released. OS X I'm familiar with mostly through helping people with it as favours.
We can talk about all the people left in the cold by the System 7 update, or the growing pains of OS 9 - I remember that. I recently put OS X on a early mode G4, and found that even after a memory upgrade it was clearly unhappy.
I remember selling upgraded motherboards for ridiculous prices to Mac LC owners back in the day. And I mean RIDICULOUS. I couldn't believe people paid it. And they had to send back the original motherboard to be used as refurbs or pay even more.
Our store went through a boom in Mac sales each OS revision.
Never challenge an attacker? (Score:5, Interesting)
I challenge all those virus-writing bozos to write one! Clearly they haven't got the faintest idea how to create something truly malicious when they don't have a bunch of pretty scripts already written for them. Not a single virus? That shows these bain-dead hacks can't write real code for peanuts. They're hopeless jokes and OS X users laugh about them all the time. And their mothers are too fat.
There. I said it.
Someone had to.
"Never challenge an attacker" ?
In the case of security, I *want* OS X to be the subject of intense scrutiny. I want people combing the OS for hooks they can hang malware on. This will force Apple to respond and make the OS more secure. If this doesn't happen, the OS will stay as it is (and that's not a bad level of security right now).
The MOAB fizzled out to a few third-party issues (most fixed by now) a few categories of Apple issues and a *lot* of invective from those bozos. They were useless hacks unfit to call themselves researchers. They failed comprehensively to find that "smoking gun" which would have catapulted them to the notoriety they sought.
So, who's next? Any wanna-be virus writers looking for a challenge? Or are you all too chicken? Are you all incapable?
I double-dog dare you!
I wonder if ... (Score:3, Interesting)
They're feeding those exploits to Apple so that they can improve the Mac.
That would be an example of "responsible disclosure", which Microsoft is so much in favour of.
Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to do so?
Re:I'd say he's running scared..... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd go so far as to say that the only thing keeping Vista from being a flop is MS' strongarm agreements with the OEM's.
If no one at MS can come up with a single compelling reason to get Vista other than irrelevant eye candy, then there must not be one. Nobody wants Vista, because there's no real value in it, and because MS can't tell anyone why they should want Vista.
The next couple of years will be a huge opportunity for Apple and/or Lunix.
Re:Be careful what you wish for, Bill. (Score:5, Interesting)
As for getting what he wishes for, he already does - on a scale that OSX will never see. People measure the cost of the MS disasters in the billions of dollars. Way to miss the point Microsoft.
Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? (Score:3, Interesting)
And even from day 1 of OS X's release, they've made mostly good decisions when faced with security vs usability choices, while in the same 8 years MS has made pretty much all the wrong decisions when faced with the same questions. It's possible they've changed 180 degrees on their security with Vista, but it sure doesn't seem that way from the installations we've set up for testing. They seem more interested in bombarding the user with confirmation dialogs so that they can then blame the user when something goes wrong, rather than actually coming up with a (or using an existing) security model that is both useful and usable for a non-computer expert.
I think Gates (and MS) is too much like most slashdotters, thinking that if anything goes wrong it's because the user didn't RTFM, not because the system was poorly designed. Jobs, at the opposite extreme, wants to make computers be sealed appliances with no user-serviceable parts but expensive maintenance contracts. Somewhere in-between is the right answer, Apple is just fortunate to have enough good programmers to translate Jobs' desires into a functional compromise. MS doesn't have anywhere near enough UI designers or usability testers to overcome the RTFM attitude that comes from MS's geek culture.
Re:Well, of course he's saying that. (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of Hodgeman and sympathy, did you see Gates on The Daily Show? The instant the interview was over, Gates did an about-face and high-tailed it out of there. Didn't even sit down and do the faux-chat thing during the transition to the commercial break. The guy couldn't generate sympathy if he tried, he has no social graces at all. He didn't even use any humor during the interview - he spoke like it was a advertisement for laundry detergent, not an interview with Jon Stewart.
And then his keynote was so boring that I actually fell asleep.
I've been to WWDC several times and seen Steve Jobs speak and I have never fallen asleep. Steve Jobs may not be the best jokester in the world, but he is a very good communicator. In fact, I can't picture him going on Jon Steward's show because: Jobs isn't funny enough to do the show well, he doesn't do self deprecating humor well, AND he is smart enough to already be aware that he couldn't pull it off. Gates is the sort of nerd who just doesn't know/care that he is not funny or interesting or tasteful.
Re:4 TEH WIN! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? (Score:1, Interesting)
Despots don't encourage revolution (Score:2, Interesting)
This demonstrates one of the fundamental differences between Mac users and Windows users. Mac users love their platform far above any available alternative. This means that Jobs can inflict substantial amounts of pain on them when he deems it necessary, and not lose his user base. The CPU architecture of the Mac has changed twice since 1990 (MC680x0 to PPC to x86), and the OS has undergone a similar number of changes that rendered all existing software "legacy". Even so, the Mac users take the whipping because they love their Macs.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has been very careful indeed with its compatibility issues. For Microsoft, compatibility and incompatibility are key tools in managing their user base. Smooth compatibility in the direction you wish to shepherd your user base, and errect compatibility barriers in the other directions. The compatibility oddities you note in your post exist because they influence the user base in ways beneficial to Microsoft's monopoly. You're thinking in terms of Microsoft serving the user base, which simply doesn't happen unless it coincides with Microsoft serving their own monopoly.
With that in mind, consider what would happen if Microsoft did what was necessary to clean up their OS: had a MacOS 9 to X style of transition. Their user base can already do that: it's called migrating to Linux, and has the advantage that it also frees them from Microsoft lock-in. If Microsoft themselves threw down the gauntlet and proclaimed that it was time to break compatibility, the dam holding their monopoly would burst: the pain of migration is the only thing keeping many of them off Linux now.
That's not to say that everyone would migrate to Linux, but enough would that real competition would re-enter the market, and the additional support that Linux would receive as a result would make it even more of a viable competitor. It's taken Microsoft a very long time to build the monopoly they enjoy, and they will not discard it so lightly. If "[continuing] to support a fundamentally broken design for eternity" is what it takes to maintain the monopoly, then expect them to so continue.
Apple came up with what? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that'd be Xerox [wikipedia.org]. Actually, they were the first to implement it. The basics of the WIMP [wikipedia.org] concept were first proposed by Doug Engelbart [wikipedia.org].
This isn't something I ever thought I'd have to point out in a Slashdot discussion. Apple makes great stuff, but most of their "innovations" come from elsewhere. They just do a great job at implementing them.
Re:I'm ready to review OS X. Send me a Mac! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I think what you are noticing is that every IT writer in existence in 2007 has run a Mac at least a little bit, whereas in 2001 when Windows XP came out, Mac OS X was just a few months old, and it was rare that any IT press knew anything existed other than Microsoft. Especially over the last couple of years the combination of iPod success and Apple-Intel switch has created a situation where many IT writers are writing about Windows all day then going home to their Macs. You can't put a new Windows with a Mac skin and Mac features in front of these guys and they don't notice. These are also the same guys who were chatting up WinFS and now have to explain why certain dialog boxes in Windows still look like NT 3.1.
When Windows 95 came out, very few people noticed that the way the UI looked was a complete rip-off of NeXT, because hardly anybody had run a NeXT system, or even seen a screenshot from a NeXT system. The Vista skin is similarly very much like Mac OS X, but the problem for Bill Gates is that everybody in IT knows that. You can't just wink about it anymore. The Mac is running the same 64 bit Core chips as everyone else and there are even 4-way Xeon 1U servers so it is really disingenuous to play the same old game that Bill Gates plays of pretending Apple doesn't exist. IT used to play along but like you say, they seem to all be Mac users now.
Re:Speaking of misleading... (Score:2, Interesting)
Upgrading the zif socket in my 350MHz G4 to 800MHz cost about $40 and took less than 5 minutes and one reboot. About 4 minutes were spent apply thermal glue. You can go on about upgrading your motherboard all you want. To claim you can't buy a Mac motherboard and install it in a tower just shows you aren't a serious Mac user. Take a trip over to xlr8yourmac.com and inform yourself.
I've spent hours adding a video card to a pc before, and XP has NEVER recognized the card in only one reboot. I've upgraded video cards on Macs, once using a PC version card and flashing the ROM in about the same amount of time it takes to install those ram chips. You stick the card in the slot and boot-up. Done. If I could get all the time back from clicking through Nvidia driver install screens in XP, I'd be a year younger. I've had PC components that refused to work with XP work just fine in my G4, even when designed for XP (and not Mac). This isn't necessarily because a Mac is so well designed. Rather, it demonstrates just how poorly Microsoft designs stuff in their quest to dominate everything, while being good at nothing.
"Upgrading" a hard drive is a freakin' joke in XP. With a Mac, you can borrow your friend's Mac-loaded hard drive and it boots up. No configuring, no restarts, nothing. You get a working desktop in about 30 seconds. The last time I took an XP hard drive out of one machine and dropped it into another, I didn't have working video card, network card or audio for a couple hours and about 10 reboots.
You can go on about "propietary" this and that, but the fact remains that this is a much easier way to perform upgrades.