Peter Cole's Profile

Not your best article Chris. There's no question that MS looks suicidal, but calling Windows the best OS without qualification isn't a defendable position (best for whom?) and the problems with Microsoft stem entirely from the senior management not knowing how to produce products in a commercially competitive environment. Windows is simply an artifact of that. It's architecture was and is weak and retards the advancement of the platform in the 21st Century. I'd expect to See Ballmer loose his job in the next year or so, and then see a string replacements come and go over the next decade as they try to shore up a sinking company. Microsoft makes these missteps simply because they can't do any better. The facade of Windows is cracking, the lack of protection from competitors is driving them to the wall and management are running around like headless chickens. Suggesting this is a surprising change for Microsoft shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances that provided Microsoft its position of 'success': http://www.cole.net.nz/peter/Anti-MS/Entries/2007/10/21_Microsoft:_the_‘M’_is_for_Mafia.html

Definitely sleep deprived - here's why clones were, are and will remain a bad idea for Apple: http://www.cole.net.nz/peter/Home/Entries/2007/5/5_A_question_of_profit.html

Honestly Tanner (& Apple Matters), this is not the first time you've written a hopelessly muddled article. Just to begin with I think you really need to get them proof read by colleagues before you inflict them upon us. This is not good enough. It's not that they're grammatically poor, but logically... Like others I can't tell if you're for or against half the things you talk about Tanner. You use of language is emotive, yet your details fail to convey the same meaning: you use a provocative title, but really the article isn't about how Leopard is a Vista knockoff at all. Then there's the plain mistakes that others have pointed out. To suggest Leopard is a Vista knockoff is quite ignorant. To compare the delays of the two OSes as remotely equivalent is equally daft, not to mention that the Leopard delays have not left the OS short. The few things that were dropped were trivial and I suspect you don't even know what they are (e.g. wireless Time Machine). To be blunt, this article is a waste of time and space. Apple Matters needs to do much better if they're to keep my interest (& other's by the look of it). Note to Apple Matters: stop paying people with the writing skills of a young teenager to write articles. I can visit Bebo to read such drivel anytime.

Absolutely the worst article I've ever read on Apple Matters, and I've been a deaily reader for years. Tanner, if this is the best reason you could come up with that the iPod could have a bad future, then the iPod has a rosy future indeed! Since the most popular iPod holds 1000 tunes, and the average owner fills their iPod right up, then the (again, on average) 22 songs on that iPod bought from the iTunes store - the only DRM music an iPod plays - ads to just 2.2% of the music. If that doubles, heck if it quadruples - no, lets say it goes up 10 times, in the next few years (possibly but unlikely) the majority of music is still DRM free. The upshort is this; DRM has bugger-all to do with iPod success or failure. iPods are filled with music from CDs mostly - not surprising as CD sales still make DRM music sales like pretty small. So Tanner, please think about what you're writing about before making an ass of yourself. Apple watchers expect Apple commentators to know what they're talking about - or they get hauled over the coals - like you are here.