I was gonna buy leopard with my christmas money... but after serveral thoughts I

[togermano]

decided not too....

I just bought the mac in september and after looking at the features and playing around with it at the apple store.. I decided I won't be shelling out the 125 dollars for it. I mainly wanted it because it probly would have better intel and duel core support.... But after playing around with it at the apple store I didn't notice a difference in speed... It seems like leopard is basically windows 98 compared to 95... Just updated apps and a slightly different new look with alittle more bloat to go with it. Anyone else agree with this?

[Eidorian]

September?

Are you sure you don't qualify for this (http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/)?

[togermano]

September?

Are you sure you don't qualify for this (http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/)?

Apple Online Store on or after October 1, 2007

saddly no then :( SHould i try to do it anyways? lol

[Eidorian]

Apple Online Store on or after October 1, 2007

saddly no then :( SHould i try to do it anyways? lolI'm surprised that you didn't try.

I've seen members with August purchases get lucky.

[Much Ado]

It seems like leopard is basically windows 98 compared to 95... Just updated apps and a slightly different new look with alittle more bloat to go with it. Anyone else agree with this?

No, i don't agree with that at all :o I'm just waiting for all the tasty core-animation apps...

[JimmyDThing]

September?

Are you sure you don't qualify for this (http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/)?

According to that site:

"Customers who purchase a qualifying new Macintosh computer or an Apple Certified Refurbished computer from the Apple Online Store on or after October 1, 2007 that does not have Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard included can upgrade to Leopard."


I bought mine in September too... I was kinda ticked, haha.

[togermano]

plus with some apps and games not working with leopard yet thats another problem i didn't buy it

[TheSpaz]

Leopard is leaps and bounds faster on my Mac Pro. It's a big difference that I noticed RIGHT away. It's the downgraded Spotlight and the Disappointing stacks that make it not as easy to use. Other than a few things, I think it's overall better than Tiger and I'm sure Apple will fix the quirks in future updates... it's already been said that they're modifying stacks to bring the old hierarchy view back.

[ckeck]

Anyone else agree with this?

Nope

[Eidorian]

There are two things that I don't like about Leopard.

1. CUPS browsing is no longer enabled by default :confused:
2. Non-admin users can no longer add printers.

That is all.

[macDonalds]

There is definitely a speed increase. And the addition of Spaces and Time Machine are worthy enough for the upgrade.

[tersono]

Actually, under the hood Leopard is probably the biggest change since 10.0, so no, it's not like Win95 vs 98 :rolleyes: There's been some fairly major changes and at least one highly respected developer I know of (Rixstep) consider Leopard to be essentially a new platform.

Stick with Tiger if you're comfortable, but there are already applications that only offer their full feature set when running on Leopard, so there is going to come a time that you're going to get left behind.

[clevin]

I remember there were quite a few people, back in Jun, claimed leopard would be so much faster than Tiger, lol, Guess not...

anyway, you can get leopard for $109 at newegg.com, or amazon, or jr.com. etc..

[weg]

decided not too....

Anyone else agree with this?

Yes, I do. I've heard too many bad things about Leopard (bugs etc.), the new features make the user interface inconsistent and hard to use (and Time Machine is just a half-assed backup solution). I'll stick to OS X 10.4.

[weg]

There is definitely a speed increase. And the addition of Spaces and Time Machine are worthy enough for the upgrade.

As for spaces: Desktop Manager (http://desktopmanager.berlios.de/) is a very nice freeware tool that has been out there forever. You really don't need spaces.

[vansouza]

decided not too....

I just bought the mac in september and after looking at the features and playing around with it at the apple store.. I decided I won't be shelling out the 125 dollars for it. I mainly wanted it because it probly would have better intel and duel core support.... But after playing around with it at the apple store I didn't notice a difference in speed... It seems like leopard is basically windows 98 compared to 95... Just updated apps and a slightly different new look with alittle more bloat to go with it. Anyone else agree with this?

Leopard is a 64 bit OS and IS faster then Tiger on newer machines. But if Tiger is working for you, and you are happy, then there is no need to move to Leopard. So wait.

[unity]

I decided to not buy a Porsche, does that mean I start a thread about it? No.

My point is: so what? Thats ok that you decided not to, you have your reasons so lets move on.

I myself often said that Leopard is not a NEED, its a WANT. There is no need to upgrade for most people, but most people want it.

As for bugs. I would like the OP to point out some that would directly affect him/her. I myself had not come across one bug yet. While they may be there, not all have and HP printer over a wireless VPN with a Cisco 5620 router. Not all bugs affect everyone.

I did not need it, but I am happy I upgraded. I have it on my new iMac and purchased a copy for my 1.25Ghz G4 Titanium Powerbook. It "feels" faster than Tiger and Spotlight is not a great App launcher since its finally snappy. I dont use spaces and likely never will - but I said that about Expose and use that ALL the time now. Time Machine works REALLY well but is not meant to be used daily, its JUST a back-up solution. If you have to use it so much that it bugs you, well then you have other problems. Stacks suck, but they are growing on me. The new "list" feature of stacks will be much welcome, but it will not be my default. Networking is working well.

So I did not need it, but I am glad to have it. I have other friends that asked me about it, and the ones I felt did not need it I told them so.

[GimmeSlack12]

Just updated apps and a slightly different new look with alittle more bloat to go with it. Anyone else agree with this?

I don't agree either. There really isn't any Bloat. I do understand not paying for it if you don't have that much money. Go spend it on other video games or something. The OS isn't that big of a deal.

[Kashchei]

According to that site:

"Customers who purchase a qualifying new Macintosh computer or an Apple Certified Refurbished computer from the Apple Online Store on or after October 1, 2007 that does not have Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard included can upgrade to Leopard."


I bought mine in September too... I was kinda ticked, haha.

FWIW, I bought a mini in late September (delivery was in October) and still qualified for the up-to-date program. If this applies to you, I'd at least see if you qualify for the up-to-date program

[clevin]

I decided to not buy a Porsche, does that mean I start a thread about it? No.
there is a thing called freedom of speech. OP can say whatever he wants, as long as its a civil discussion.

can't always ask other people to behave just like each other.
Leopard is a 64 bit OS and IS faster then Tiger on newer machines.
I am not sure about that, I guess its all about what your tasks are. most day-2-day users won't feel much about it. and even for CPU intense tasks, that speed difference is based on the assumption that apple makes leopard good enough to be able to take advantages of 64bit cpu. Its a big assumption if you ask me.
I don't agree either. There really isn't any Bloat. I do understand not paying for it if you don't have that much money. Go spend it on other video games or something. The OS isn't that big of a deal.
I don't know what you call it, But Tiger requires 3G HDD space. While Leopard asks for 9G, Its a significant "bloat" if you ask me, considering the changes on the surface, as well as under the hood.

[unity]

I am not sure about that, I guess its all about what your tasks are. most day-2-day users won't feel much about it. and even for CPU intense tasks, that speed difference is based on the assumption that apple makes leopard good enough to be able to take advantages of 64bit cpu. Its a big assumption if you ask me.

That you are right about. 64 bit does not equate speed, so going from 32 bit to 64 bit is not a speed increase. However, it can address larger amounts of RAM. Was 32 limited to 4GB chunks? I forget.

[TheSpaz]

Yes, I do. I've heard too many bad things about Leopard (bugs etc.), the new features make the user interface inconsistent and hard to use (and Time Machine is just a half-assed backup solution). I'll stick to OS X 10.4.

Tiger had a ton of bugs when it was first released... get over it. Also, Time Machine works WONDERFULLY! It has never failed on me and it's almost worth getting Leopard just because of Time Machine. I love it. The UI is way more consistent than the previous versions of OS X and it's MUCH faster. Why wouldn't that be a reason to upgrade? Also, you can stay on Tiger but, for how long? You'll start to see a lot of Apps being developed that say "Leopard Only" because of the "under the hood" changes in Leopard that make for developing way better Apps that can utilize Leopard to the fullest. So have fun with that. Also, you hear a lot of bad things about Leopard because most likely you are looking on these forums where people are posting about problems and bugs but, that doesn't mean that everyone has these problems... it all depends on your exact configuration and needs. People on these forums are most likely looking for help and if someone doesn't have a problem with something, they're most likely not going to post on a web forum because there would be nothing to post about.

[clevin]

That you are right about. 64 bit does not equate speed, so going from 32 bit to 64 bit is not a speed increase. However, it can address larger amounts of RAM. Was 32 limited to 4GB chunks? I forget.

i think so, but im not sure about the #.

about the only app that will be able to take advantages of it is apple's own BIG apps like iMove, FCP etc. Adobe already said they won't do 64bit photoshop for mac, I really can't imagine 64bit being a big thing for leopard, since when 64bit eventually being significant adopted, OSX 10.7 would be out.

[FleurDuMal]

I decided to not buy a Porsche, does that mean I start a thread about it? No.

My point is: so what? Thats ok that you decided not to, you have your reasons so lets move on.

I myself often said that Leopard is not a NEED, its a WANT. There is no need to upgrade for most people, but most people want it.

As for bugs. I would like the OP to point out some that would directly affect him/her. I myself had not come across one bug yet. While they may be there, not all have and HP printer over a wireless VPN with a Cisco 5620 router. Not all bugs affect everyone.

I did not need it, but I am happy I upgraded. I have it on my new iMac and purchased a copy for my 1.25Ghz G4 Titanium Powerbook. It "feels" faster than Tiger and Spotlight is not a great App launcher since its finally snappy. I dont use spaces and likely never will - but I said that about Expose and use that ALL the time now. Time Machine works REALLY well but is not meant to be used daily, its JUST a back-up solution. If you have to use it so much that it bugs you, well then you have other problems. Stacks suck, but they are growing on me. The new "list" feature of stacks will be much welcome, but it will not be my default. Networking is working well.

So I did not need it, but I am glad to have it. I have other friends that asked me about it, and the ones I felt did not need it I told them so.

So what? That's OK you decided to get Leopard, you have your reasons, so lets move on.

;)

[vansouza]

I am not sure about that, I guess its all about what your tasks are. most day-2-day users won't feel much about it. and even for CPU intense tasks, that speed difference is based on the assumption that apple makes leopard good enough to be able to take advantages of 64bit cpu. Its a big assumption if you ask me.

Leopard is a 64 bit OS on 64 bit processors and 32 on 32 bit processors. That is a fact not an assumption.

[GimmeSlack12]

I don't know what you call it, But Tiger requires 3G HDD space. While Leopard asks for 9G, Its a significant "bloat" if you ask me, considering the changes on the surface, as well as under the hood.

I was always under the impression Tiger needed 8gigs free. Well, Leopard hides it well if that is the requirement.

[CashGap]

It seems like leopard is basically windows 98 compared to 95... Just updated apps and a slightly different new look with alittle more bloat to go with it. Anyone else agree with this?

Nope.

Based on use (not in the store... on real machines from G4 to current), it's faster and MUCH more stable. Time Machine is probably worth the upgrade price alone.

[clevin]

Leopard is a 64 bit OS on 64 bit processors and 32 on 32 bit processors. That is a fact not an assumption.

lol, assumption is "apple's 64bit OS can really bring out the goodies of 64bit CPU", basically, i m just questioning apple's developing strength, as I always did.

64bit OS is a fancy word, how much it can do better is the problem.

Time Machine is probably worth the upgrade price alone.I think these type of statment is irresponcible.

"Time machine" worth $129? please, lets don't glorify the price policy of apple.

[richard.mac]

There are two things that I don't like about Leopard.

1. CUPS browsing is no longer enabled by default :confused:
2. Non-admin users can no longer add printers.

That is all.

1. have you tried this address? http://127.0.0.1:631/

[Eidorian]

1. have you tried this address? http://127.0.0.1:631/CUPS browsing is no longer available by default. ;)

If you edit the /etc/cups/cupsd.conf (http://127.0.0.1:631/admin?op=config-server) file you can allow browsing in Add Printer... in System Preferences.

[Cromulent]

lol, assumption is "apple's 64bit OS can really bring out the goodies of 64bit CPU", basically, i m just questioning apple's developing strength, as I always did.

64bit OS is a fancy word, how much it can do better is the problem.

I think these type of statment is irresponcible.

"Time machine" worth $129? please, lets don't glorify the price policy of apple.

Apple has increased the efficiency of the kernel thread manager which does equate to a real world speed increase. Leopard is faster than Tiger on the same computer.

I noticed it straight away and that was just with browsing and using e-mail. As soon as I put the system under strain it did become more obvious. Leopard seems to take better advantage of the multiple cores in the Mac Pro than Tiger did.

Personally I could Leopard as being must have software for the Mac. The improvements are just too great not to get it.

[clevin]

Personally I could Leopard as being must have software for the Mac. The improvements are just too great not to get it.

I don't know, maybe, maybe not, I guess everybody can try out at store for themselves.

[Cromulent]

I don't know, maybe, maybe not, I guess everybody can try out at store for themselves.

True, unfortunately most of the improvements in Leopard are not so obvious. Apple have added significant improvements to the tools available for developers both in the APIs and in the tools themselves that should mean that when new Leopard only applications start appearing users will really start to notice the difference.

[CashGap]

"Time Machine is probably worth the upgrade price alone."


I think these type of statment is irresponcible.

"Time machine" worth $129? please, lets don't glorify the price policy of apple.

By that I mean, I would certainly have paid $129 for that single feature if it were demonstrated to me at the time I bought a Mac. I imagine an inexperienced user would snap it up even faster, since it's even more valuable to those who don't understand how it works and how to replicate the functionality with scripts.

Keep in mind how people value their time. Seeing an app like Time Machine for $129, it is "free" if it EVER saves 30 minutes to an hour of work. Who wouldn't appreciate it at that price?

[TheSpaz]

"Time Machine is probably worth the upgrade price alone."



By that I mean, I would certainly have paid $129 for that single feature if it were demonstrated to me at the time I bought a Mac. I imagine an inexperienced user would snap it up even faster, since it's even more valuable to those who don't understand how it works and how to replicate the functionality with scripts.

Keep in mind how people value their time. Seeing an app like Time Machine for $129, it is "free" if it EVER saves 30 minutes to an hour of work. Who wouldn't appreciate it at that price?

Time Machine is OUTSTANDING on my Mac Pro. I'm used to backing up stuff but, with Time Machine there's no hassle, and I don't even have to THINK about it and I know my stuff is safe. I've used Time Machine a bunch since I started using it and it has saved me dozens of times. If I accidentally overwrote a file or screwed something up while I'm doing my hacking and mods, I can simply restore what I ruined and it's quite easy to do. My Time Machine drive saves about a month and a half and that's pretty much enough time to notice I have a problem and restore before Time Machine overwrites it. One thing that you DO NOT wanna use Time Machine is for archiving files because you should only have Time Machine back up what you want to KEEP and don't just use it as an excuse to delete files (thinking that they're backed up, so why keep them on your boot drive).

[weg]

Leopard is a 64 bit OS on 64 bit processors and 32 on 32 bit processors. That is a fact not an assumption.

Did they entirely get rid of the 32-bit UI? (Tiger was a "mixed" OS, AFAIK)

[Eidorian]

Did they entirely get rid of the 32-bit UI? (Tiger was a "mixed" OS, AFAIK)Leopard is 64-bit in the UI as well.

I remember it being drilled into the Keynotes.

[heatmiser]

It seems like leopard is basically windows 98 compared to 95... Just updated apps and a slightly different new look with alittle more bloat to go with it. Anyone else agree with this?

I'd call it Vista compared to XP. Very little you do in the "new" OS that you can't do in the "old" OS. I'm sticking with Tiger until I have a need for Leopard.

Edit: and for people looking for Time Machine on pre-Leopard machines, there's Carbon Copy Cloner and SuperDuper. You can even use both to make bootable clones (which I don't think TM can do).

[Quillz]

Actually, under the hood Leopard is probably the biggest change since 10.0, so no, it's not like Win95 vs 98 :rolleyes: There's been some fairly major changes and at least one highly respected developer I know of (Rixstep) consider Leopard to be essentially a new platform.

Stick with Tiger if you're comfortable, but there are already applications that only offer their full feature set when running on Leopard, so there is going to come a time that you're going to get left behind.
Leopard is a new platform in the sense that it's now an official Unix OS. 10.0-10.4 were all Unix-like OS.