PDA

View Full Version : Leopard catching up with Vista


MacBytes
Aug 9, 2006, 08:59 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Leopard catching up with Vista (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060809095923)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Fiveos22
Aug 9, 2006, 09:11 AM
We don't want our friends to start their photocopiers any sooner than they have to," he said.

In particular, Gartenberg noted that Jobs pointed to a new version of the Front Row media software, but did not offer any details. The current version allows remote-control access to pictures, music and videos, but stops short of the TV-recording features offered by Windows XP Media Center Edition.

Well, hey, why don't we just speculate on the trivial new features. A FrontRow update is no reason to update an operating system. I believe Apple when they say that there are big things that are being kept secret in the upcoming release. Most likely under the hood.

Even though Apple is largely on track with Leopard's timing, some analysts noted that the company could have scored an even bigger coup had it had the revamp ready in time to include on Macs for this year's holiday shopping season.

"They had a huge, gaping window of opportunity if they could ship this fall," said IDC analyst Bob O'Donnell. But now there's "a good chance" that Leopard won't ship until after Vista, he said.

I thought the coup was releasing Panther and Tiger before Vista/Longhorn. I hope the view isn't that Vista and Leopard are competitors.

Belly-laughs
Aug 9, 2006, 09:17 AM
I thought Vista was already caught, eaten and digested :confused:

Eraserhead
Aug 9, 2006, 09:18 AM
After looking at Vista on the web, what I can see (and the general consenus seems to be) that Vista = Tiger, with Tiger slighly better, maybe. (Obviously a remotely affordable ie. not Vista Ultimate edition will be considerably worse than Tiger) how Leopard can be "catching up" is a mystery to me.

chicagdan
Aug 9, 2006, 09:22 AM
After looking at Vista on the web, what I can see (and the general consenus seems to be) that Vista = Tiger, with Tiger slighly better, maybe. (Obviously a remotely affordable ie. not Vista Ultimate edition will be considerably worse than Tiger) how Leopard can be "catching up" is a mystery to me.

Guys, this is just a case of ZDNET putting a bad headline on a perfectly reasonable story. Nowhere in the story does it claim that Leopard is catching up to Vista, quite the opposite. When this same story ran on C|Net, it had a different headline. ZDNET picked it up and some idiot editor completely misinterepreted the story.

Fiveos22
Aug 9, 2006, 09:26 AM
The "catching up" title is not misleading, its being mis-interpreted. They mean that the ship date of Leopard may be catching up with the release date of Vista. Its being mis-intrepreted as meaning that Leopard is trying to reach technical parity with Vista.

chicagdan
Aug 9, 2006, 09:32 AM
The "catching up" title is not misleading, its being mis-interpreted. They mean that the ship date of Leopard may be catching up with the release date of Vista. Its being mis-intrepreted as meaning that Leopard is trying to reach technical parity with Vista.

But that's not accurate either ... most people were under the impression that Leopard would be released in the first quarter of 2007, now we learn it will be the second quarter.

crees!
Aug 9, 2006, 10:26 AM
But that's not accurate either ... most people were under the impression that Leopard would be released in the first quarter of 2007, now we learn it will be the second quarter. So?

chicagdan
Aug 9, 2006, 10:32 AM
So?

So what? My point was that the ZDNET headline was wrong. It had nothing to do with the story that followed. Reporters don't write their own headlines and the story wasn't even written for ZDNET, it was written for their sister site, C|Net.

So, what's your problem with what I wrote?

crees!
Aug 9, 2006, 10:35 AM
So what? My point was that the ZDNET headline was wrong. It had nothing to do with the story that followed. Reporters don't write their own headlines and the story wasn't even written for ZDNET, it was written for their sister site, C|Net.

So, what's your problem with what I wrote? The story is about the release of Leopard being pushed back to Spring 2007. The title of the story implies a joke that Apple is catching up with MS in OS delays. What don't you understand about that?

chicagdan
Aug 9, 2006, 10:37 AM
The story is about the release of Leopard being pushed back to Spring 2007. The title of the story implies a joke that Apple is catching up with MS in OS delays. What don't you understand about that?

And you really think ZDNET meant it that way? No chance.

crees!
Aug 9, 2006, 10:42 AM
And you really think ZDNET meant it that way? No chance. Nice to show your bias and not give a story credibility when deserved. I could say stop being so narrow-minded... but I won't.

chicagdan
Aug 9, 2006, 10:50 AM
Nice to show your bias and not give a story credibility when deserved. I could say stop being so narrow-minded... but I won't.

How am I showing bias? All I'm saying is read the story for what it is, not what the headline says. The story was originally published on C|net under the headline "Leopard nipping at Vista's Heels." ZDNET picks up the same story and inserts a headline "Leopard Catching Up With Vista" that, on at least first glance, seems to be about the new OSX catching up feature wise with Vista. The story isn't really about that ... but neither is it a snarky slap at Microsoft for its frequent calendar slips.

You offer a re-interpretation of that headline that seems highly implausible -- only someone wildly pro-Apple would read the headline that way -- and then accuse me of bias? What?

crees!
Aug 9, 2006, 11:03 AM
How am I showing bias? All I'm saying is read the story for what it is, not what the headline says. The story was originally published on C|net under the headline "Leopard nipping at Vista's Heels." ZDNET picks up the same story and inserts a headline "Leopard Catching Up With Vista" that, on at least first glance, seems to be about the new OSX catching up feature wise with Vista. The story isn't really about that ... but neither is it a snarky slap at Microsoft for its frequent calendar slips.

You offer a re-interpretation of that headline that seems highly implausible -- only someone wildly pro-Apple would read the headline that way -- and then accuse me of bias? What? Well then go bitch at MacRumors for not posting the original article. The title of the article did it's job. That's to gain interest. After reading the article you understand the real meaning of the title which is still true to the story. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I see both sides of this discussion, you on the other hand only see one.

(unsubscribed)

chicagdan
Aug 9, 2006, 11:21 AM
Well then go bitch at MacRumors for not posting the original article. The title of the article did it's job. That's to gain interest. After reading the article you understand the real meaning of the title which is still true to the story. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I see both sides of this discussion, you on the other hand only see one.

(unsubscribed)

Yeah, you're a real paragon of virtue, starting up a flame war with me over nothing and then declaring yourself unsubscribed. Nice work.

Shadow
Aug 9, 2006, 11:41 AM
Deleted

p0intblank
Aug 9, 2006, 11:44 AM
How am I showing bias? All I'm saying is read the story for what it is, not what the headline says. The story was originally published on C|net under the headline "Leopard nipping at Vista's Heels." ZDNET picks up the same story and inserts a headline "Leopard Catching Up With Vista" that, on at least first glance, seems to be about the new OSX catching up feature wise with Vista. The story isn't really about that ... but neither is it a snarky slap at Microsoft for its frequent calendar slips.

You offer a re-interpretation of that headline that seems highly implausible -- only someone wildly pro-Apple would read the headline that way -- and then accuse me of bias? What?

I have to agree with you. I read that article thinking it'd be a stab at Apple for "trying to catch up" as far as features go, but like you said the headline is very misleading. This article is actually in favor of Apple.

plinden
Aug 9, 2006, 11:50 AM
But that's not accurate either ... most people were under the impression that Leopard would be released in the first quarter of 2007, now we learn it will be the second quarter.
I was under the initial impression that the next Windows OS would be released in 2002. Because that's when MS said it would be.

At no time before WWDC did Apple say when Leopard would be released.

So any impression is self-generated.

dsnort
Aug 9, 2006, 11:50 AM
After looking at Vista on the web, what I can see (and the general consenus seems to be) that Vista = Tiger, with Tiger slighly better, maybe. (Obviously a remotely affordable ie. not Vista Ultimate edition will be considerably worse than Tiger) how Leopard can be "catching up" is a mystery to me.
I think the author meant to imply that the release dates were getting closer together. Although I admit the title is somewhat misleading, when I first saw it my hackles got up.

EDIT. I really should have read the rest of the thread before posting. I would list all those that beat me to it, but it would take too long!

chicagdan
Aug 9, 2006, 11:56 AM
I was under the initial impression that the next Windows OS would be released in 2002. Because that's when MS said it would be.

At no time before WWDC did Apple say when Leopard would be released.

So any impression is self-generated.

I don't disagree with any of that. MS has unquestionably dropped the ball on Vista -- taking way too long and ripping out most of the revolutionary features they touted early. And, given what Jobs did with the Intel release schedule, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we get a "surprise" Leopard release sometime in the first quarter of 2007.

p0intblank
Aug 9, 2006, 12:15 PM
I don't disagree with any of that. MS has unquestionably dropped the ball on Vista -- taking way too long and ripping out most of the revolutionary features they touted early. And, given what Jobs did with the Intel release schedule, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we get a "surprise" Leopard release sometime in the first quarter of 2007.

I really hope Apple does surprise us with an early release. It would be so great! I don't think I can wait until spring to play with Time Machine and iChat. :p

jettredmont
Aug 9, 2006, 02:22 PM
At no time before WWDC did Apple say when Leopard would be released.


I think that is incorrect. I am pretty sure Steve said 2007, perhaps even "before WWDC" in 2007, at last year's WWDC keynote. That was certainly the impression I got, although I'm not about to go back to the tape to dig up an exact quote 'cause I'm both lazy and pressed for time. :)

That having been said, I certainly haven't ever heard anyone official say first quarter of 2007. Perhaps "WWDC 2007" got translated into "end of first half of 2007" then some finance guy transformed "end of first half" to "end of March" (because Apple's fiscal year starts in October/end September) ... Or maybe someone just pulled it wholesale from their ass. Who knows?

playaj82
Aug 9, 2006, 02:33 PM
I really hope Apple does surprise us with an early release. It would be so great! I don't think I can wait until spring to play with Time Machine and iChat. :p

I do not want Apple to rush this OS. Take some time, make everything work, that will make me happier than one or two neat features sacrificed by everything else not working.

winmacguy
Aug 9, 2006, 03:17 PM
I posted the article and I would agree that while the article itself is very good the headline is misleading and therefore easily misinterpreted. I read it that either technically or release wise Leopard is somehow going to be potentially released after Vista/ or that Leopard as an operating system is slowly catching up to the level of features or innovation that Vista will potentially have. Either way I believe that both of those understandings would be wrong.:rolleyes:

wyatt23
Aug 9, 2006, 04:35 PM
it's just a headline. it's only offensive if you let it be.


it could mean a multitude of things. features, release, etc. personally, i don't think it makes all that much sense.

1. vista is trying to catch up with Tiger/Leopard
2. leopard isn't catching up, they stated in january it could be late 06 early 07, and it's still going to be fairly early 07. vista was supposed to be released years and years ago. once again, nothing to do with the title at all.

3. this isn't the first nor last time we're going to see a crappy headline. just be happy that this crappy headline didn't come hand in hand with a crappy article.

brepublican
Aug 9, 2006, 04:58 PM
I think the correct title for the article should be "Vista catching up with Leopard?"

Cos I mean, really... Mac OS X is the most advanced OS on earth :cool: