Apple more bitchy than usual?
Apple's developer conference is going on at the moment.
And as per usual its about 50% Apple promotion like telling people how much their stuff costs, and 50% attacking Microsoft.
But best of all we got to find out about new cool Apple features which are brand new and never been done before!
Hang on a minute, time machine? Isn't that just like System Restore which has been in Windows since 1999....
Oh it can backup stuff too... So it's like backup, which has been in Windows since 1995.
Some improvements in Windows Vista include things like being able to browse the former file structure just as if it were like the existing one, being able to roll back files and even folders with just a few clicks of the mouse and all of this goes on automatically in the background.
Apple... Welcome to 1999 of PC management. Please make sure your copycats are safely secured before the show.
Why don't they just be honest....?
And show their true character....a bunch of bratty 8 year olds.
Categories: Technology
7th August 2006 18:49:46, 171 words, 1997 views
9 comments » • Send a trackback »
7th August 2006 18:49:46, 171 words, 1997 views9 comments » • Send a trackback »
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
9 comments
Comment from: Mart [Visitor]
Yeah, Apple's totally bitchy... and this wonderful post, by contrast, isn't bitchy at all.
Talk about bratty 8-year-olds. Do you seriously think time machine is just like the backup that's in Win95?
What made you decide to pick on time machine and not than 64-bit support, core animation, ichat, spotlight, etc.? I'm sure there are comparable features in Windows, right?
Nice work interpreting the cosmos there, conscious cosmic matter dude. Peace!
Talk about bratty 8-year-olds. Do you seriously think time machine is just like the backup that's in Win95?
What made you decide to pick on time machine and not than 64-bit support, core animation, ichat, spotlight, etc.? I'm sure there are comparable features in Windows, right?
Nice work interpreting the cosmos there, conscious cosmic matter dude. Peace!
7th August 2006 @ 19:57
Comment from: feedback [Visitor]
Yeah, it's just like 1999. Did you even bother to take a look before displaying your ignorance? I thought not. Typical for a brat, though.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/timemachine.html
What a maroon.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/timemachine.html
What a maroon.
7th August 2006 @ 20:16
Comment from: Ford Model T = Lexus SC430...right [Visitor]
Uh yeah, right, so just because Windows had some kind of backup utility (that no one even uses or is aware of) since 1999, that makes it the same in functionality/usability/efficiency as Time Machine?
Windows Backup (or System Restore) is a brute force method that lacks any refinement whatsoever. If you have to stretch to try to make Windows backup the equivalent of Time Machine, that seems to reveal more your insecurities about the TOTALLY STAGNANT state of Windows backup since Microsoft first introduced it.
7th August 2006 @ 20:36
Comment from: Wes [Visitor]
...so, it's not like the feature from Windows 95... but more like the feature from Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista
(see http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/Windows-Server-2003-Volume-Shadow-Copy-Service.html )
Glad that clears it up... they copied from a recent version of Windows.
Gotcha...
(see http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/Windows-Server-2003-Volume-Shadow-Copy-Service.html )
Glad that clears it up... they copied from a recent version of Windows.
Gotcha...
7th August 2006 @ 20:39
Comment from: DoggerBlue [Visitor]
Apparently some of the conscious matter in the cosmos is immature, prejudicial, and barely even considers some features of the cosmos before pronouncing judgement on them based on name alone.
Whodathunkit?
Whodathunkit?
7th August 2006 @ 20:48
Comment from: Mart [Visitor]
You MS shills kill me.
(1) Shadow copy data resides on the same volume as the original data.
Time Machine backs up to a server or external disk.
(2) Shadow copy backups are designed to restore one file at a time. Because of this, shadow copy backups are not suitable for restoring large numbers of files.
Time Machine can restore your whole system.
(3) Shadow copy doesn't do any file versioning. Either the file is in the copy at the time the copy is run, or it's not.
Time Machine can restore any previous version of any file.
(4) Shadow copy works in Windows Server 2003 and Vista (maybe?). WS2003 is a server OS and Vista, in case you've forgotten, HASN'T SHIPPED.
Time Machine will be on every Mac running Leopard.
Yeah. Totally copied from Windows 2003. I totally see it now.
(1) Shadow copy data resides on the same volume as the original data.
Time Machine backs up to a server or external disk.
(2) Shadow copy backups are designed to restore one file at a time. Because of this, shadow copy backups are not suitable for restoring large numbers of files.
Time Machine can restore your whole system.
(3) Shadow copy doesn't do any file versioning. Either the file is in the copy at the time the copy is run, or it's not.
Time Machine can restore any previous version of any file.
(4) Shadow copy works in Windows Server 2003 and Vista (maybe?). WS2003 is a server OS and Vista, in case you've forgotten, HASN'T SHIPPED.
Time Machine will be on every Mac running Leopard.
Yeah. Totally copied from Windows 2003. I totally see it now.
7th August 2006 @ 20:52
Comment from: Mart [Visitor]
Nice one Dogger :-) But it's comforting to know that the richest man in the world has this way cool stoned gamer blog to protect his awesome products from that mean bitchy Apple...
7th August 2006 @ 20:55
Comment from: Erik [Visitor]
History lesson : Snapshot or Shadow Copy services were first introduced in VMS in the mid-80s if I remember correctly. There were probably even earlier examples in some mainframe systems too.
Clarifications on both sides : Shadow Copy works on W2K3 volumes, but the client runs happily on XP so you can review snapshots on your network drive from your workstation.
Shadow Copy on Windows is (currently) unable to perform a full system restore in the case where you lose your baseline disk. It can be redirected to a secondary volume, but only changes are copied so if you lose your source disk you're hosed.
Time Machine permits browsing of the file structure as well.
Both service appear to be much needed on both OS environments and I'm glad to see them.
Clarifications on both sides : Shadow Copy works on W2K3 volumes, but the client runs happily on XP so you can review snapshots on your network drive from your workstation.
Shadow Copy on Windows is (currently) unable to perform a full system restore in the case where you lose your baseline disk. It can be redirected to a secondary volume, but only changes are copied so if you lose your source disk you're hosed.
Time Machine permits browsing of the file structure as well.
Both service appear to be much needed on both OS environments and I'm glad to see them.
7th August 2006 @ 21:46
Comment from: Steve [Visitor]
Steve Jobs has the unbelievable talent for getting people to forget he's a salesman.
These banners and keynotes are advertising, and I haven't seen truth in an advertising campaign since ... let's see ... oh yeah, never.
Apple's latest advertising campaign is one where they promote their platform to consumers as the hipper, cooler, and more 'now' choice. Snarky comments about the competition are compulsory - but not necessarily accurate.
That said, the feature set shown yesterday was pretty weak for an OS that is supposed to compete with Vista.
These banners and keynotes are advertising, and I haven't seen truth in an advertising campaign since ... let's see ... oh yeah, never.
Apple's latest advertising campaign is one where they promote their platform to consumers as the hipper, cooler, and more 'now' choice. Snarky comments about the competition are compulsory - but not necessarily accurate.
That said, the feature set shown yesterday was pretty weak for an OS that is supposed to compete with Vista.
8th August 2006 @ 12:12