Taking a step back for a moment, Apple has made great progress when it comes to their applications.  iTunes, for example, has simplified the process of managing one’s music library, myself wrangling hundreds of albums worth of material.  On top of simple and straightforward library management, they offer their fine iPod music player which integrates flawlessly with their iTunes application.  Now outside of iTunes, I usually don’t have much to do with Apple.  I do shop from their iTunes Store often and find it very complete when it comes to finding what I’m looking for, aside from some artists.  I own an iPod Shuffle and frankly love it to death.  People shrug it off from its overly-simplistic, no-screen only-buttons-and-lights appearance, but I find it simple and of great quality, not to mention the audio fidelity of the generation 1 iPod Shuffle to be very satisfying with a nice pair of headphones.

In 2007, Apple decided to port its Safari web browser to the Windows platform, labeling it a beta and making it available for free via download.  At first, I jumped on the opportunity and have found Safari on Windows to be sleek, simple and very fast when it comes to page rendering.  Though I’ve never been a fan of Safari on the Mac platform, it does its job and the simple fact that its fast is enough to give it attention.  One issue I’ve found with Safari on Windows is that, well, it looks like crap.  Yes, the Apple staff have ported it straight from the Mac platform to Windows and that includes just about every aspect of the application, including design.  However, I seriously think Apple should re-think the look of the browser.  To me, it sticks out like a sore thumb when it comes to the Windows platform.  I do understand that Apple isn’t making much for money when it comes to their browser and I’m positive that they purposely designed the browser to indoctrinate users into the Mac look feel of things, as if its a large marketing campaign.  The same goes with iTunes on Windows, it looks just too similar to Mac applications and just doesn’t fit in with Windows.  Looks aside, both applications are very well planned and executed.  iTunes alone, I find it hard to come up with a suitable replacement.

Safari still needs a lot of work to give it a significant edge over the other major web browsers on the market today.  Internet Explorer 7 is ahuge improvement over version 6 and supports web standards well.  When it comes to Firefox, though, it just cannot stand its ground.  Firefox has been gradually snatching up marketshare in the browser market and rightfully so.  Mozilla Firefox has been my browser of choice for several years now, supporting web standards first, stable operation and application expandability with extensions.  Even today, Firefox is improving greatly still, with Firefox 3 looming over the horizon for a June 2008 release.  I’ve been testing nightly builds of Firefox 3 for a while now and find it much faster over version 2, and even giving Apple a run for its money when it comes to speed.  But the expandability aspect of extensions is just too much for me to consider Safari my browser of choice.  Speed alone won’t get you marketshare.

Something that’s also been in the news lately is how Apple’s been handling its 3.1, final release of Safari.  For some time now, iTunes has been pushed on to Windows users via Apple’s Quicktime media technology, which I originally thought was distasteful of Apple.  Now, Apple alone isn’t the first nor is it the last company to use this tactic, as Microsoft and Adobe have been doing it for years with Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player and the Google Search Toolbar with Adobe Reader.  While the extra software installations are optional, with a somewhat exception of Internet Explorer 7, I feel that when you install or update a product on your computer, you should not be asked to install more than what you’re already attempting to use.  Recently, Apple has been offering an install option for Apple Software Update on Windows machines during a new or update installation of iTunes or Quicktime.  I personally chose to install Apple’s software updater to continue updates for Quicktime and iTunes, both of which I find myself using often.  However, Apple has taken the “darkened path” of pushing again, more software, onto its users by offering Safari through its Software Update application.  I feel strongly that developers and/or companies should not use software updaters to install optional applications, but to only update products already installed.  I see this as an abuse of user trust between the user and the developer/publisher of applications, as it exploits the users’ faith in a software update application to update applications they have allowed onto their machines.  Again, Apple isn’t the first company to do this and I would much rather see them stop using their users’ trust to their advantage.  Stick with updating software that already exists on a user’s machine, don’t exploit someone’s trust with you.

On top of all of this hoopla about Apple pushing new software disguised as an “update,” I’ve delved into the license agreements of iTunes and Safari after this issue has come to light.  It seems that Apple, again, has slipped up with a product of theirs, as the Safari user agreement includes a possibly dangerous tidbit, against Apple anyway.  Quoting directly from the Safari user license agreement:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

Apple’s legal department most likely missed this and didn’t revise their license for Windows’ version of Safari.  I don’t hate Apple, but I think that they’re just growing too large to maintain the level of control that they’ve previously and continuously held on their platforms.  Success is not a bad thing in the least, but from the way that things are going lately for Apple, I’m beginning to second guess the real perks that Apple has paraded about their system.

Another rumor really circulating around the Web today is regarding Microsoft’s official official release of SP1 for Vista.  Now, Service Pack 1 has already been “released” for distribution once, regarding the Windows Vista team blog, but was quickly recalled due to many driver incompatabilities and errors.  If I remember correctly, Microsoft had these issues in the past with service packs for the still popular Windows XP operating system, but were smoothed out and patched swiftly and accordingly.  Now mind you, Vista is still an evolving and maturing platform and I have to say that it does have its definite benefits, as well as its many fall-backs.

Taking a step back for a moment, I have given Vista its fair share of testing and use on my machines, at least a good couple months in total, yet I still cannot remain convinced that Vista has enough benefits to cause me to upgrade from Windows XP.  The staff at Microsoft have done many great things with the Windows platform over the years and there are definitely many things in Windows Vista that I do enjoy.  But at the same time, I just cannot stand it as my primary platform.  Vista still needs much time to evolve and mature into a tuned system, much like XP has over these past six years.

While its a must that technology companies such as Microsoft develop and adapt to ever-changing products of today’s world of computing, I still remain unconvinced that Windows Vista nets enough benefits to approve an upgrade from previous platforms.  That being said, I’m very curious to see just how far Microsoft can push Vista as a platform.  Windows XP support has been extended until sometime in 2011, which is great for the many, many users of the system, including myself.  Manufacturers are only allowed to continue selling machines with Windows XP installed, or as an available option, until June 2008.

I really do want to like Vista, but I still cannot.  I know I’m not the only one who says this.

Maybe Microsoft will finally give us a new operating system that’s finished? Or at least the pieces missing when we got the thing?