Jaharmi’s Irreality renewable hyperlinks with 0% transfat since 1999

MacNN notes Apple’s CEO in Decade of Mac OS upgrades likely (it’s easier to link to MacNN than the original NYT article), commenting that Mac OS X Leopard will form the basis for the next ten years of operating systems upgrade. I remember Mac OS X being announced — not sure if this was at a WWDC or Macworld keynote — as “the next twenty years” of Apple operating systems. We’re basically ten years out from the NeXT acquisition of Apple acquisition of NeXT.

He says “I’m quite pleased with the pace of new operating systems every 12 to 18 months for the foreseeable future,” wherein we see again that Apple considers the Intel version of Mac OS X to be a major release of Mac OS X. That’s fine, I’m sure it took a lot of effort and it has definitely had an impact. Otherwise, accounting for the 910 days between the debuts of Leopard and Tiger would mean that Apple isn’t sticking to a 12- to 18-month release schedule.

I think, by this logic, it’s entirely reasonable for Microsoft to consider Windows XP SP2, XP 64-bit, XP Tablet Edition, XP Media Center Edition, and all of Windows Vista to be major releases. It’s only fair. Sure, it took them a long time to release an upgrade to the original Windows XP, but it’s not like they’ve sat idle without releasing anything new at all between 2002 and 2007.

Inside CNET Labs: Windows virtual machine performance on the Mac examines how well Apple Boot Camp (i.e. “running Windows”), VMWare Fusion 1.0, Parallels Desktop 3.0, and CrossOver Office compare against running Microsoft Windows. Oh, and they also throw in a performance comparison of the same software running on Mac OS X, if it can.

Performance comparisons are important, even if this one is perhaps a little frivolous — and explained in a somewhat silly fashion. I feel like I’d be more likely to trust a different source, such as Ars Technica or XLR8YourMac.com or BareFeats.com after reading this article, despite its utility.

This is partly because I wonder what they really tested. One question I have for CNET’s “Crave: The gadget blog” people: how did they get an eight-core 2.66 GHz Mac Pro? Last I checked, Apple only sells the eight-core model in a 3.0 GHz version. The 2.0, 2.66, and lower-end 3.0 GHz systems all have a maximum of four cores (all using dual-core Xeon CPUs).

[Via Daring Fireball.]

Update: Curtis, ever-vigilant (but without a URL known to me, so he gets no link), points out via IM that CNET apparently tricked out their Mac Pro with quad core CPUs back in November 2006. We call them jerks. What do you say?

Thanks to Nadyne for point out the Wall Street Journal’s PowerPoint Turns 20, As Its Creators Ponder A Dark Side to Success. It was great to see Dennis’ name in print! (One drawback of not going to WWDC last week was that I missed catching up with him.)

If you don’t get enough Microsoft Entourage information from the usual sources, I count that as a personal failing on my part. Just kidding. But still … you’ll probably want to check out Amir's Exchange Clients Blog. There, Amir “is focussed [sic] on Entourage only in the role of being a client to Exchange Server and Outlook Anywhere (RPC over HTTP) Feature.”

[Via Richard.]