You guys can go ahead and laugh all you want about Windows, but let me tell you something: Microsoft may look like a big dumb ogre, but they're not complete idiots. They know that Vista is a bust. They know they are losing users to Apple and they know that if they don't do anything about it, they're going to suffer, big time.
Windows 7 is Microsoft's way of turning over a new leaf. They've already written a new, super small (40MB in-use), non-cluttered Kernel (called MinWin), and from there will rebuild windows in the way Vista was meant to be rebuilt. Windows 7 will be lean and it will be fast. It will, for the first time, be a worthy competitor to Mac OS X, and it will get done on time (or heads WILL roll......... Balmer).
Microsoft has the manpower to do it too. They just need the organization that they've never had before. The main reason for delayed OSes is bad management and legacy support. If Microsoft follows this path (and I think they've resolved their managment issues), they will once again become a force to be reckoned with.
This last decade has been an "easy" one for Apple. Windows has been the sleeping giant. But now it's awake and it is MAD. It's no longer going to be a walk in the park for Apple. This excites me, too, because it'll bring greater competition, and henceforth greater innovation between the two companies. It's a great time to be not only a Mac user, but a Windows user as well. Their side of things are about to get considerably better, I feel.
-Clive
I think these are substantive observations, and worth heeding.
In a move that has not been seen for years, the TV network NBC is compensating its advertisers as ratings drop during the ongoing writers' strike, say media buyers.
Companies that bought advertising space are seeing an average of $500,000 for their troubles, which began in early November but may only get worse in January. Other major networks are also experiencing a shortfall but are faring better, the according to reports.
The payout compounds NBC's existing drops in revenue, which included abandoning iTunes TV show sales worth at least $15 million over the past year in favor of its web-only, ad-sponsored Hulu service. The broadcaster's service is still in a closed beta test and not yet open to the public at large.
Nice one Steve - orchestrate a writers strike to weaken the ad-funding model and strengthen the purchase model (comparatively) and what's the most successful TV download service out there?
Content maybe King - except when he's on holiday. Now how about that back-catalog on iTunes?
[QUOTE=Hiro;1183776]Clive your ability to read timelines is exceeded only by your ability to polish a turd. Windows 2000 was DELIVERED the same year OS X public beta was released. OS 9 was shipped about six months before Win2K. XP was three years later. TWO GENERATIONS in what is considered a typical tech cycle.
Windows 2k was released February 17, 2000. It was succeeded by Windows XP in October 2001. OS X Public Beta (which should even count was released September 13, 2000. After the release of Win2k. OS X 10.0 (which was so unuseable that it should barely count either) was officially released March 24, 2001, with 10.1 in September (which was a free upgrade for those who suffered through 10.0. Puma *should* be considered the first stable OS X but even if you want to go on a technicality, it's still exactly like I said. Microsoft was finishing XP when OS X was on its first iterations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
While you are mildly correct that mid-90s MacOS features weren't breathtaking by todays standards, overall, your ability to sift fact from fantasy is in serious disrepair. Your predictive ability and past judgement is based on a collapsed house of cards.
Yeah? So? The point of studying history is to learn from it, collapsed hosue-of-cards or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
So Windows 7 will be out sometime soon? Like 2014?
Again, laugh all you want, but unlike Vista, the plan for Windows 7 is clear. Make Windows a fast, lean and clean OS and cut the crap. I will personally be surprised if it is not out before 2011.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I think these are substantive observations, and worth heeding.
Thank you for at least acknowledging the potential validity of my arguments. It's hard to say what doesn't want to be heard, especially in the extremely passionate Mac Community, so I appreciate your support.
Windows 2k was released February 17, 2000. It was succeeded by Windows XP in October 2001. OS X Public Beta (which should even count was released September 13, 2000. After the release of Win2k. OS X 10.0 (which was so unuseable that it should barely count either) was officially released March 24, 2001, with 10.1 in September (which was a free upgrade for those who suffered through 10.0. Puma *should* be considered the first stable OS X but even if you want to go on a technicality, it's still exactly like I said. Microsoft was finishing XP when OS X was on its first iterations.
Yeah? So? The point of studying history is to learn from it, collapsed hosue-of-cards or not.
Again, laugh all you want, but unlike Vista, the plan for Windows 7 is clear. Make Windows a fast, lean and clean OS and cut the crap. I will personally be surprised if it is not out before 2011.
Thank you for at least acknowledging the potential validity of my arguments. It's hard to say what doesn't want to be heard, especially in the extremely passionate Mac Community, so I appreciate your support.
-Clive
You make valid points and it doesn't sound like you are drinking anyone's Kool-Aid. MS has a long history of vaporware pronouncements and the only thing different this time IS that MS is lossing ground on several fronts. This is not the 90s and Apple and Linux and a good deal of competing apps are major contenders so maybe MS has seen the light.
If MS is serious about competing (and I hope they are) and can get themselves organized (and I hope they do) then perhaps it won't too late for them, but the tables have turned in favour of open standards and if MS doesn't follow suit then a leaner kernel isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
I heard that iTunes was pulling NBC content but as of last check CNBC 'Fast Money' which I subscribe to, is still on.
m
NBC/Universal is the pulling the content and they did a wekl or two ago. This doesn't mean shows that air on stations owned by NBC/Universal but shows that are owned by NBC/Universal. This means that some shows that air on NBC will still remain on iTunes and others that air on other networks will be off iTunes. Confusing bullcrap, eh?
If MS is serious about competing (and I hope they are) and can get themselves organized (and I hope they do) then perhaps it won't too late for them, but the tables have turned in favour of open standards and if MS doesn't follow suit then a leaner kernel isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
Agreed. Very good point.
...But a leaner Kernel is a first good sttep to a better OS . That's something that anyone can appreciate, right?
In techno's defense, there is some NBC news in this topic. Read the whole article.
OK, I guess I didn't scroll down back then when I checked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
As for "other companies" I don't know who you're talking about. Google? I'm actually starting to hate Google. They're getting a little too imeperialistic, IMO, and I am frighted that Web 2.0 will start to establish some sort of web dynasty that will be monopolistic and we will be forced to live in mediocrity until the Apple of the Internet Age appears.
Google doesn't control "Web 2.0". I don't think they can. It's not a monolithic standard or any kind of standard. You certainly don't need Google anything to make a Web 2.0 site, all the core technologies are available for free in several different forms. Controlling Web 2.0 can't be any easier than hoarding all the air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
...But a leaner Kernel is a first good sttep to a better OS . That's something that anyone can appreciate, right?
...guys?
It's possible, but I don't think it's the kernel that is the problem. It was decent for NT 4 and I'm still using NT 5. But if restructuring the kernel kicks their butt in gear to re-architect the stuff on top of the kernel, then it could be good. I think it kind of works into their problem because I think they have to start breaking things in order to work to a fix. Microsoft has previously been working on making sure everything is as backward compatible as possible. As it is, I'm using a couple different bits of 10+ year old software right now. Apple had to junk their old OS, and I think Microsoft would have to follow a similar route.
...But a leaner Kernel is a first good sttep to a better OS . That's something that anyone can appreciate, right?
...guys?
-Clive
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It's possible, but I don't think it's the kernel that is the problem. It was decent for NT 4 and I'm still using NT 5. But if restructuring the kernel kicks their butt in gear to re-architect the stuff on top of the kernel, then it could be good.
I really think MS should follow Apple by going with FreeBSD as a basis for their next Windows version. I think it's the only way for them to compete quickly with a stable and sound product. FreeBSD => NeXT => OS X is a sound product which decades of development. MS can't even copy an Mp3 player well, how are they going to build a competing OS from teh ground up. However, I can't imagine MS seeing Unix as a viable option despite their past interest and ownership of SCO... at least not yet. Perhaps if they lose half their value they may see things in a new light.
Google doesn't control "Web 2.0". I don't think they can. It's not a monolithic standard or any kind of standard. You certainly don't need Google anything to make a Web 2.0 site, all the core technologies are available for free in several different forms. Controlling Web 2.0 can't be any easier than hoarding all the air.
That one sould've been a "Web OS." My bad.
I thought you were a smart guy and could've figured out what I meant anyway!
While, as you say, Web 2.0 cannot be held, it is the platform upon which Web OSes are being built. The most notable Web OS, by a landslide, is Google.
Again, laugh all you want, but unlike Vista, the plan for Windows 7 is clear. Make Windows a fast, lean and clean OS and cut the crap. I will personally be surprised if it is not out before 2011.
We shouldn't underestimate Vista. Just because of that terrible marketing and press, people shouldn't expact that it isn't a great OS. Just wait for the first holiday season and the first service pack. For me it works great on different machines for a year now.
There are some reasons why you may be right: They just wanted too much with Vista/Longhorn and spend too much time on the old XP base before they moved over and restartet it on Windows Server 2003.
On the other hand, none of the Office versions where released behind shedule and now the people behind Office are working on Windows 7. Furthermore there is a lot of technology almost finished, that didn't made it into Vista (and technology thats inside but not used now) and the development inside MS is completely focused on security since 2002. Unlike at Apple.
I really think MS should follow Apple by going with FreeBSD as a basis for their next Windows version. I think it's the only way for them to compete quickly with a stable and sound product. FreeBSD => NeXT => OS X is a sound product which decades of development. MS can't even copy an Mp3 player well, how are they going to build a competing OS from teh ground up. However, I can't imagine MS seeing Unix as a viable option despite their past interest and ownership of SCO... at least not yet. Perhaps if they lose half their value they may see things in a new light.
I don't think this is a good option. The NT kernel is modern and stable. With that MinWin project they will create a simple new kernel version for all of their OSes. And after that, if they can make Windows 7 modular, they could someday easily switch to that "Singularity" OS kernel they have developed inside Microsoft Research.
If MS is serious about competing (and I hope they are) and can get themselves organized (and I hope they do) then perhaps it won't too late for them, but the tables have turned in favour of open standards and if MS doesn't follow suit then a leaner kernel isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
Popular misconception has bouyed Windows up so far but that's changing and scarily fast. I'm not convinced the switch is for purely technical reasons, consumers at least are becoming more outcome focussed. To create products as well as Apple's MS will need a complete organisational & philosophical change - i.e. real designers. That's going to take a while & pi$$ off a lot of developers who currently think they are.
A new version of Windows in 2010+ should help MS retain its 30% marketshare
Are you serious? Didn't they introduces some new products/services like the Mouse Wheel, Media Center, Tablet PC, online gaming on consoles and wireless sharing/syncing for MP3 players...? They do copy and innovate just like every other company.
making a mouse is not innovation... try again! no, innovation is coming up with something that nobody thought of....something that astonishes people.... wow, they came up with a boring MP3 player that wirelessly shares to itself, how many of those you see around? Sure MS has come up with some good things, I'm not trying to say they make the worst stuff, I'm just saying they need to innovate new ideas instead of current trends.
wow, they came up with a boring MP3 player that wirelessly shares to itself, how many of those you see around? Sure MS has come up with some good things, I'm not trying to say they make the worst stuff, I'm just saying they need to innovate new ideas instead of current trends.
Don't be so judgmental. MS also came up with the abilty to sync a Zune wirelessly while connected by a physical wire. I can't imagien any other company coming up with *that* idea. \
I love how the iphone can be compared with any almost any product nowadays.
It would be extremely sad if the iPhone, which is a hand-held device, was able to beat a desktop class operating system that has not even been released yet. Just for starters: computers have much specs then a mobile phone and the iphone only has a 3.5in screen. That is why the quote from microsoft is just so funny, they are comparing their future os with a mobile phone.
Don't be so judgmental. MS also came up with the abilty to sync a Zune wirelessly while connected by a physical wire. I can't imagien any other company coming up with *that* idea. \
When you charge your Zune in your bed room, it syncs automatically. Well, this isn't that bad, is it?
I love how the iphone can be compared with any almost any product nowadays.
It would be extremely sad if the iPhone, which is a hand-held device, was able to beat a desktop class operating system that has not even been released yet. Just for starters: computers have much specs then a mobile phone and the iphone only has a 3.5in screen. That is why the quote from microsoft is just so funny, they are comparing their future os with a mobile phone.
He just mentioned the multi-touch capabilities because the iPhone is the only multi-touch device out there right now (what about Microsoft Surface?). I think his statement wasn't really smart. You can't compare something with an Apple product because most of the Apple users aren't able to be critical. It is like: "Ooh, my god is better than your god!"
Comments
You guys can go ahead and laugh all you want about Windows, but let me tell you something: Microsoft may look like a big dumb ogre, but they're not complete idiots. They know that Vista is a bust. They know they are losing users to Apple and they know that if they don't do anything about it, they're going to suffer, big time.
Windows 7 is Microsoft's way of turning over a new leaf. They've already written a new, super small (40MB in-use), non-cluttered Kernel (called MinWin), and from there will rebuild windows in the way Vista was meant to be rebuilt. Windows 7 will be lean and it will be fast. It will, for the first time, be a worthy competitor to Mac OS X, and it will get done on time (or heads WILL roll......... Balmer).
Microsoft has the manpower to do it too. They just need the organization that they've never had before. The main reason for delayed OSes is bad management and legacy support. If Microsoft follows this path (and I think they've resolved their managment issues), they will once again become a force to be reckoned with.
This last decade has been an "easy" one for Apple. Windows has been the sleeping giant. But now it's awake and it is MAD. It's no longer going to be a walk in the park for Apple. This excites me, too, because it'll bring greater competition, and henceforth greater innovation between the two companies. It's a great time to be not only a Mac user, but a Windows user as well. Their side of things are about to get considerably better, I feel.
-Clive
I think these are substantive observations, and worth heeding.
NBC refunding advertisers due to writer's strike
In a move that has not been seen for years, the TV network NBC is compensating its advertisers as ratings drop during the ongoing writers' strike, say media buyers.
Companies that bought advertising space are seeing an average of $500,000 for their troubles, which began in early November but may only get worse in January. Other major networks are also experiencing a shortfall but are faring better, the according to reports.
The payout compounds NBC's existing drops in revenue, which included abandoning iTunes TV show sales worth at least $15 million over the past year in favor of its web-only, ad-sponsored Hulu service. The broadcaster's service is still in a closed beta test and not yet open to the public at large.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Nice one Steve - orchestrate a writers strike to weaken the ad-funding model and strengthen the purchase model (comparatively) and what's the most successful TV download service out there?
Content maybe King - except when he's on holiday. Now how about that back-catalog on iTunes?
McD
Why? Everyone else had the decency to stay on topic. Go find an NBC thread to bitch about NBC. It's not as if those are hard to find.
In techno's defense, there is some NBC news in this topic. Read the whole article.
Windows 2k was released February 17, 2000. It was succeeded by Windows XP in October 2001. OS X Public Beta (which should even count was released September 13, 2000. After the release of Win2k. OS X 10.0 (which was so unuseable that it should barely count either) was officially released March 24, 2001, with 10.1 in September (which was a free upgrade for those who suffered through 10.0. Puma *should* be considered the first stable OS X but even if you want to go on a technicality, it's still exactly like I said. Microsoft was finishing XP when OS X was on its first iterations.
While you are mildly correct that mid-90s MacOS features weren't breathtaking by todays standards, overall, your ability to sift fact from fantasy is in serious disrepair. Your predictive ability and past judgement is based on a collapsed house of cards.
Yeah? So? The point of studying history is to learn from it, collapsed hosue-of-cards or not.
So Windows 7 will be out sometime soon? Like 2014?
Again, laugh all you want, but unlike Vista, the plan for Windows 7 is clear. Make Windows a fast, lean and clean OS and cut the crap. I will personally be surprised if it is not out before 2011.
I think these are substantive observations, and worth heeding.
Thank you for at least acknowledging the potential validity of my arguments. It's hard to say what doesn't want to be heard, especially in the extremely passionate Mac Community, so I appreciate your support.
-Clive
m
Windows 2k was released February 17, 2000. It was succeeded by Windows XP in October 2001. OS X Public Beta (which should even count was released September 13, 2000. After the release of Win2k. OS X 10.0 (which was so unuseable that it should barely count either) was officially released March 24, 2001, with 10.1 in September (which was a free upgrade for those who suffered through 10.0. Puma *should* be considered the first stable OS X but even if you want to go on a technicality, it's still exactly like I said. Microsoft was finishing XP when OS X was on its first iterations.
Yeah? So? The point of studying history is to learn from it, collapsed hosue-of-cards or not.
Again, laugh all you want, but unlike Vista, the plan for Windows 7 is clear. Make Windows a fast, lean and clean OS and cut the crap. I will personally be surprised if it is not out before 2011.
Thank you for at least acknowledging the potential validity of my arguments. It's hard to say what doesn't want to be heard, especially in the extremely passionate Mac Community, so I appreciate your support.
-Clive
You make valid points and it doesn't sound like you are drinking anyone's Kool-Aid. MS has a long history of vaporware pronouncements and the only thing different this time IS that MS is lossing ground on several fronts. This is not the 90s and Apple and Linux and a good deal of competing apps are major contenders so maybe MS has seen the light.
If MS is serious about competing (and I hope they are) and can get themselves organized (and I hope they do) then perhaps it won't too late for them, but the tables have turned in favour of open standards and if MS doesn't follow suit then a leaner kernel isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
I heard that iTunes was pulling NBC content but as of last check CNBC 'Fast Money' which I subscribe to, is still on.
m
NBC/Universal is the pulling the content and they did a wekl or two ago. This doesn't mean shows that air on stations owned by NBC/Universal but shows that are owned by NBC/Universal. This means that some shows that air on NBC will still remain on iTunes and others that air on other networks will be off iTunes. Confusing bullcrap, eh?
If MS is serious about competing (and I hope they are) and can get themselves organized (and I hope they do) then perhaps it won't too late for them, but the tables have turned in favour of open standards and if MS doesn't follow suit then a leaner kernel isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
Agreed. Very good point.
...But a leaner Kernel is a first good sttep to a better OS
...guys?
-Clive
In techno's defense, there is some NBC news in this topic. Read the whole article.
OK, I guess I didn't scroll down back then when I checked.
As for "other companies" I don't know who you're talking about. Google? I'm actually starting to hate Google. They're getting a little too imeperialistic, IMO, and I am frighted that Web 2.0 will start to establish some sort of web dynasty that will be monopolistic and we will be forced to live in mediocrity until the Apple of the Internet Age appears.
Google doesn't control "Web 2.0". I don't think they can. It's not a monolithic standard or any kind of standard. You certainly don't need Google anything to make a Web 2.0 site, all the core technologies are available for free in several different forms. Controlling Web 2.0 can't be any easier than hoarding all the air.
...But a leaner Kernel is a first good sttep to a better OS
...guys?
It's possible, but I don't think it's the kernel that is the problem. It was decent for NT 4 and I'm still using NT 5. But if restructuring the kernel kicks their butt in gear to re-architect the stuff on top of the kernel, then it could be good. I think it kind of works into their problem because I think they have to start breaking things in order to work to a fix. Microsoft has previously been working on making sure everything is as backward compatible as possible. As it is, I'm using a couple different bits of 10+ year old software right now. Apple had to junk their old OS, and I think Microsoft would have to follow a similar route.
Agreed. Very good point.
...But a leaner Kernel is a first good sttep to a better OS
...guys?
-Clive
It's possible, but I don't think it's the kernel that is the problem. It was decent for NT 4 and I'm still using NT 5. But if restructuring the kernel kicks their butt in gear to re-architect the stuff on top of the kernel, then it could be good.
I really think MS should follow Apple by going with FreeBSD as a basis for their next Windows version. I think it's the only way for them to compete quickly with a stable and sound product. FreeBSD => NeXT => OS X is a sound product which decades of development. MS can't even copy an Mp3 player well, how are they going to build a competing OS from teh ground up. However, I can't imagine MS seeing Unix as a viable option despite their past interest and ownership of SCO... at least not yet. Perhaps if they lose half their value they may see things in a new light.
Google doesn't control "Web 2.0". I don't think they can. It's not a monolithic standard or any kind of standard. You certainly don't need Google anything to make a Web 2.0 site, all the core technologies are available for free in several different forms. Controlling Web 2.0 can't be any easier than hoarding all the air.
That one sould've been a "Web OS." My bad.
I thought you were a smart guy and could've figured out what I meant anyway!
While, as you say, Web 2.0 cannot be held, it is the platform upon which Web OSes are being built. The most notable Web OS, by a landslide, is Google.
There now does my statement make more sense?
-Clive
That one sould've been a "Web OS." My bad.
I thought you were a smart guy and could've figured out what I meant anyway!
While, as you say, Web 2.0 cannot be held, it is the platform upon which Web OSes are being built. The most notable Web OS, by a landslide, is Google.
There now does my statement make more sense?
I didn't think about that. I haven't heard about any progress with this.
Again, laugh all you want, but unlike Vista, the plan for Windows 7 is clear. Make Windows a fast, lean and clean OS and cut the crap. I will personally be surprised if it is not out before 2011.
We shouldn't underestimate Vista. Just because of that terrible marketing and press, people shouldn't expact that it isn't a great OS. Just wait for the first holiday season and the first service pack. For me it works great on different machines for a year now.
There are some reasons why you may be right: They just wanted too much with Vista/Longhorn and spend too much time on the old XP base before they moved over and restartet it on Windows Server 2003.
On the other hand, none of the Office versions where released behind shedule and now the people behind Office are working on Windows 7. Furthermore there is a lot of technology almost finished, that didn't made it into Vista (and technology thats inside but not used now) and the development inside MS is completely focused on security since 2002. Unlike at Apple.
I really think MS should follow Apple by going with FreeBSD as a basis for their next Windows version. I think it's the only way for them to compete quickly with a stable and sound product. FreeBSD => NeXT => OS X is a sound product which decades of development. MS can't even copy an Mp3 player well, how are they going to build a competing OS from teh ground up. However, I can't imagine MS seeing Unix as a viable option despite their past interest and ownership of SCO... at least not yet. Perhaps if they lose half their value they may see things in a new light.
I don't think this is a good option. The NT kernel is modern and stable. With that MinWin project they will create a simple new kernel version for all of their OSes. And after that, if they can make Windows 7 modular, they could someday easily switch to that "Singularity" OS kernel they have developed inside Microsoft Research.
If MS is serious about competing (and I hope they are) and can get themselves organized (and I hope they do) then perhaps it won't too late for them, but the tables have turned in favour of open standards and if MS doesn't follow suit then a leaner kernel isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
Popular misconception has bouyed Windows up so far but that's changing and scarily fast. I'm not convinced the switch is for purely technical reasons, consumers at least are becoming more outcome focussed. To create products as well as Apple's MS will need a complete organisational & philosophical change - i.e. real designers. That's going to take a while & pi$$ off a lot of developers who currently think they are.
A new version of Windows in 2010+ should help MS retain its 30% marketshare
McD
Are you serious? Didn't they introduces some new products/services like the Mouse Wheel, Media Center, Tablet PC, online gaming on consoles and wireless sharing/syncing for MP3 players...? They do copy and innovate just like every other company.
making a mouse is not innovation... try again! no, innovation is coming up with something that nobody thought of....something that astonishes people.... wow, they came up with a boring MP3 player that wirelessly shares to itself, how many of those you see around? Sure MS has come up with some good things, I'm not trying to say they make the worst stuff, I'm just saying they need to innovate new ideas instead of current trends.
wow, they came up with a boring MP3 player that wirelessly shares to itself, how many of those you see around? Sure MS has come up with some good things, I'm not trying to say they make the worst stuff, I'm just saying they need to innovate new ideas instead of current trends.
Don't be so judgmental. MS also came up with the abilty to sync a Zune wirelessly while connected by a physical wire. I can't imagien any other company coming up with *that* idea.
It would be extremely sad if the iPhone, which is a hand-held device, was able to beat a desktop class operating system that has not even been released yet. Just for starters: computers have much specs then a mobile phone and the iphone only has a 3.5in screen. That is why the quote from microsoft is just so funny, they are comparing their future os with a mobile phone.
(also, the iphone should also not be compared to this: http://www.neimanmarcus.com/store/si...=OCBF8_NMO2807)
Don't be so judgmental. MS also came up with the abilty to sync a Zune wirelessly while connected by a physical wire. I can't imagien any other company coming up with *that* idea.
When you charge your Zune in your bed room, it syncs automatically. Well, this isn't that bad, is it?
I love how the iphone can be compared with any almost any product nowadays.
It would be extremely sad if the iPhone, which is a hand-held device, was able to beat a desktop class operating system that has not even been released yet. Just for starters: computers have much specs then a mobile phone and the iphone only has a 3.5in screen. That is why the quote from microsoft is just so funny, they are comparing their future os with a mobile phone.
He just mentioned the multi-touch capabilities because the iPhone is the only multi-touch device out there right now (what about Microsoft Surface?). I think his statement wasn't really smart. You can't compare something with an Apple product because most of the Apple users aren't able to be critical. It is like: "Ooh, my god is better than your god!"