vista ultimate better- reason for leopard delay

[astranovus]

hi,

((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))

i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,

contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....

for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,

could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?

any comments welcomed

[Cromulent]

hi,

((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))

i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,

contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....

for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,

could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?

any comments welcomed

Both systems have their merits. Use the one you personally prefer, no point in threads like this.

[astranovus]

my point was, whether vista is partly responsible for the leopard delay

[srf4real]

Actually, the reason for Leopard's delay is the new tele-transporter software. Apple has breakthrough technology to zoom people through the internet tubes to anywhere in the world now.:cool:

[a456]

Having just started using Mac Office 2004, I can start to accept why MS should be allowed to carry on existing. In fact it is a great piece of software (especially compared to Office v.X), and maybe they are not headed in the totally wrong direction (something that I have thought for a long time now). However, at the moment I think that MS just does not put itself across as a company that wants to be part of an integrated tech community. It appears to want all the profits it can get and not really work to achieve the progress it flaunts in front of our eyes in the guise of vaporware. (Is Live Search for real? Its results are less than pitiful. And granted MS Satellite Mapping is better quality than Google, but accessing it on a Mac is a dog. They just don't seem interested in technologies that work.)

Finally, when I by a tech product, which is a big investment for me, I think of the purchase as an investment in the company that produced it. I like to buy from companies that have invested in good technologies, moved things on and will continue to do so in the future, and also provide kit that should last longer and work better than generic alternatives. I therefore like to buy products by companies like Apple, Iomega, LaCie and Belkin, and make a point of doing so whenever possible, even if it means saving up and waiting longer. I buy from MS, however, because I have to for the work I do and ever since Office v.X I have begrudged them every penny, and every penny that I have to spend making myself compatible with them across platforms. But as I said I have come to appreciate Office 2004. Unfortunately because they are dropping VB in the next Mac release I will not be buying the update, and had they not done this I would be hoping that MS could carry this product forward to great things. However, once again they have lost my trust and interest (goodwill I think they call it in the business community). Whereas I have a trust in Apple (and the Apple Community) that they will find a way around the VB issue and integrate a technology into Leopard to prevent its users being faced with one big fat headache, because that is the kind of thing they do and why I stick with them.

[Cromulent]

my point was, whether vista is partly responsible for the leopard delay

I doubt it. Apple probably had access to the Vista beta builds and had information about it long before it was released. The same is probably true of Microsoft and Leopard. Do you think that either company would not invest in full developer subscriptions to the other?

[juanm]

I doubt it. Apple probably had access to the Vista beta builds and had information about it long before it was released. The same is probably true of Microsoft and Leopard. Do you think that either company would not invest in full developer subscriptions to the other?

... and industrial espionage. :cool:

[Benjamindaines]

I doubt it. Anything Apple's doing on Leopard now is making sure everything works and there are no issues that need addressing. You're not going to be able to drastically change your operating system in 3 months and have it work the way it should.

[SC68Cal]

hi,

((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))

i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,

contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....

for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,

could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?

any comments welcomed

I think you're in the minority about Vista, my friend. It's a usability nightmare, we're going to be spending the entire summer retraining our staff on how to use Office 2007 as well as preparing materials to train users on Windows Vista.

Even though we've placed a moratorium on any upgrades to Vista at least until SP1

[astranovus]

vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle,

regarding the new office 2007 ribbon,
all staff have to be trained when programmes have new features,

this is nothing vista specific

to say vista is instabil and a user nightmare, is utter rubbish, with a bit of thoughtful forethinking, vista runs great

apple has an advantage as it only has to cater for a very limited range of computers, so stability should naturally be better,

i moved away from tiger as rosetta got on my nerves under office 2004, my macbook fan was virtually lifting off all the time,

sloppy programming

[yetanotherdave]

vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle,

regarding the new office 2007 ribbon,
all staff have to be trained when programmes have new features,

this is nothing vista specific

to say vista is instabil and a user nightmare, is utter rubbish, with a bit of thoughtful forethinking, vista runs great

apple has an advantage as it only has to cater for a very limited range of computers, so stability should naturally be better,

i moved away from tiger as rosetta got on my nerves under office 2004, my macbook fan was virtually lifting off all the time,

sloppy programming


sloppy programming? Emulating a PPC procesor on an intel processor, seamlessly, the only noticable difference between it and a native app being 1) slower and 2) more taxing on the CPU?
Do me a lemon. This is part of the reason that microsoft are in so much trouble, they refuse to take evolutionary leaps, insisting that all applications should contiune running from OS to OS, adding to the bloat and security nightmare of the OS. yes they have a huge wealth of software, but a crappy OS as a result.

[daveL]

hi,

((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))

i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,

contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....

for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,

could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?

any comments welcomed

So .... BYE!! You can delete that MacRumors bookmark asap.

Oh, and no, Apple couldn't care less about Vista.

[erickkoch]

Our IT Dept refuses to convert to Vista. One of our techs told me he just bought a laptop and had to un-install Vista and put XP on it because he was having to many problems. I guess it's a preference thing.

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

I hate vista, it works like ****, sure vista doesnt crash as my but all my programs do, every program I have has crashed at least once in vista.
Also a bunch of my stuff doesnt work like my printer.
sure it may be better later but right now it just plane sucks

[a456]

I doubt it. Apple probably had access to the Vista beta builds and had information about it long before it was released. The same is probably true of Microsoft and Leopard. Do you think that either company would not invest in full developer subscriptions to the other?

... and if SJ is to be believed then this is why the 'Top Secret' features that everyone is sick of hearing about were left out until the beta that is to be distributed in June.

[savar]

vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle,

regarding the new office 2007 ribbon,
all staff have to be trained when programmes have new features,

this is nothing vista specific

to say vista is instabil and a user nightmare, is utter rubbish, with a bit of thoughtful forethinking, vista runs great

apple has an advantage as it only has to cater for a very limited range of computers, so stability should naturally be better,

i moved away from tiger as rosetta got on my nerves under office 2004, my macbook fan was virtually lifting off all the time,

sloppy programming

why isn't there a minimum post count before you can start new threads??

this a completely stupid thread that shouldn't have been started at all.

[IJ Reilly]

Who really rates "eye candy?"

I want usability, not cavities.

[Cybergypsy]

I also use Vista and it rocks,,,,never had a problem with Tiger or Vista.....

[AdeFowler]

hi,

((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))

i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,

contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....

for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,

could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?

any comments welcomed
Does the shift key work in Vista?

jk ;)

[Cromulent]

i moved away from tiger as rosetta got on my nerves under office 2004, my macbook fan was virtually lifting off all the time,

sloppy programming

I think this quote just goes to show how ignorant you are when it comes to computers. Emulating another CPU seamlessly in any OS is a great achievement. Sure it might be a bit slower but you can still use your old applications.

It would be like Microsoft suddenly deciding that Windows should only run on Playstation 3's but had the code to run all the old Windows applications as well (far fetched example but you get my point).

[SC68Cal]

to say vista is instabil and a user nightmare, is utter rubbish, with a bit of thoughtful forethinking, vista runs great


That's a laugh. Users thinking in advance? I'd be out of a Network consulting job if that happened.

[Macmadant]

hi,

((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))

i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,

contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....

for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,

could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?

any comments welcomed

Well i'm sure if apple had spent 5 years making tiger, it would have been one hell of an operating system

[weg]

sloppy programming? Emulating a PPC procesor on an intel processor, seamlessly, the only noticable difference between it and a native app being 1) slower and 2) more taxing on the CPU?
Do me a lemon. This is part of the reason that microsoft are in so much trouble, they refuse to take evolutionary leaps, insisting that all applications should contiune running from OS to OS, adding to the bloat and security nightmare of the OS. yes they have a huge wealth of software, but a crappy OS as a result.

I wouldn't call the move to Intel an evolutionary leap. Steve Jobs made a wrong decision when choosing the PPC platform, and Apple had to fix it. It's not that this move added any new features to the system.

And I don't really get your argument. Rosetta is great, but Microsoft is lame because they're insisting that all applications should continue to run on new releases of the OS?? Where's the logic in this statement?

[FF_productions]

I wouldn't call the move to Intel an evolutionary leap. Steve Jobs made a wrong decision when choosing the PPC platform, and Apple had to fix it. It's not that this move added any new features to the system.

And I don't really get your argument. Rosetta is great, but Microsoft is lame because they're insisting that all applications should continue to run on new releases of the OS?? Where's the logic in this statement?

It isn't Steve's fault that we couldn't get a 3 ghz G5. It isn't his fault that Moto had a shortage of chips. It isn't his fault we don't have a PowerBook G5.

Did Steve choose PPC in the first place?

[flopticalcube]

It isn't Steve's fault that we couldn't get a 3 ghz G5. It isn't his fault that Moto had a shortage of chips. It isn't his fault we don't have a PowerBook G5.

Did Steve choose PPC in the first place?

No. Jobs was sidelined by Sculley in 85 and founded NeXT in 86. He returned to Apple in 95 when Apple bought NeXT, long after the decision to switch to PPC had been made.

[Cromulent]

No. Jobs was sidelined by Sculley in 85 and founded NeXT in 86. He returned to Apple in 95 when Apple bought NeXT, long after the decision to switch to PPC had been made.

I think it was rhetorical question.

[flopticalcube]

I think it was rhetorical question.

Ah. :o

[Eraserhead]

The only noticeable feature of Vista over XP is Aero, now granted I have only used Home Premium but still it's not a great OS.

To the OP how much RAM did you have in the Macbook? You really need 1-2GB RAM for both OS X and Vista.

[FF_productions]

I think it was rhetorical question.

I actually didn't know but it makes sense because Steve wasn't even at Apple from 85-97.

[cube]

PPC was a right decision. x86 is an evil decision.

[iTim314]

Our IT Dept refuses to convert to Vista. One of our techs told me he just bought a laptop and had to un-install Vista and put XP on it because he was having to many problems. I guess it's a preference thing.

My brother goes to Belmont University in Tennessee, and they sent an email out to all students saying that no one is allowed to upgrade to Vista or Office '07, that it is considered an unstable operating system.

They even went as far as establishing a network-wide block that blocks Windows Vista from accessing the school network.

Oh well, 93% of the campus students (including my brother) use Macs. :)

[aristobrat]

Who really rates "eye candy?"

I want usability, not cavities.
Amen. Here's my Vista usability story:

3 of us in a Prague hotel last week, excited as hell that we have free Internet (after having paid $13/hour for it in our Munich hotel).

Only problem is, it's wired (CAT5), and there's only one jack in the room. Not good with three laptops (2 OS X + 1 Vista) all wanting to get on.

So then I rememberd that OS X can do Internet Connection Sharing, so I plugged my MBP into the jack, and never having used that feature before, I had everything setup in less than a minute.

Next day the roommate wants to use his Vista machine to do the same thing (Internet Connection Sharing). It took us over 10 minutes (and wading thru Windows Help hyperlink after hyperlink) to get it figured out. And the best part was when he turned it off, Vista didn't have the courtesy of setting his WiFi settings back up like they were before he shared (i.e. remove the static IP and switch it back to DHCP), so for the next two days, he was unable to connect to any other WiFi network.

I guess my point is that some things in Vista are just as convoluted as they were in XP and 2000. Tasks that should be easy (like Internet Connection Sharing) require multiple steps to be done in different areas of the OS and are absolutely unintuitive.

[xUKHCx]

I just got back from my sisters house where I upgraded her laptop from XP to Vista. Completely un-user friendly 1.) It took 4 hours to do the install 2.) there were very long periods of time that it was just a black screen. Awful experience. Next time i have to do this (I am family IT support) i will just wipe the drive an install everything new will take easily less than half the time.

The end result an operating system that has no advantages to my sister who uses it for Word documents + internet. I showed her the windows flip 3D thing her response "that is far too confusing for me" shows how pointless the upgrade was for her. (I did advise her that it was pointless for her but she wanted it anyway as she had the disks)

[balamw]

Who really rates "eye candy?"

I want usability, not cavities.
Yup, too much eye candy rots your eyes out. Just imagine the dentist's drill heading for your eye. :p

I've had very limited exposure to Vista to date, though I have a box of Vista Business to play with once iTunes is fully Vista happy.

My issues with Vista are similar to those I encountered moving from 2K to XP, just magnified by the fact that XP was around for so long... There are so many things they have moved in the UI, "just because". The Control Panel changes so much from version to version you can hardly find anything close to where it was in the last version.

B

[xUKHCx]

I've had very limited exposure to Vista to date, though I have a box of Vista Business to play with once iTunes is fully Vista happy.

Didn't they just fix this see here (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/936824/) for the patch + kb article


My issues with Vista are similar to those I encountered moving from 2K to XP, just magnified by the fact that XP was around for so long... There are so many things they have moved in the UI, "just because". The Control Panel changes so much from version to version you can hardly find anything close to where it was in the last version.

B

Like the personalise option for changing the display options rather than one window you now get multiple.

[IJ Reilly]

Amen. Here's my Vista usability story:

What, no wizard? I bet there was a wizard. In Windows, there's always a wizard. I'd almost be disappointed if Microsoft figured out how to make their OS do basic stuff in a logical enough way that the wizards could be banished to the dungeon, never to be seen again.

Wait, I just realized: The wizards must serve all that eye candy. Maybe that's what makes Windows users minds rot.

;)

[balamw]

Didn't they just fix this see here (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/936824/) for the patch + kb article


I'm waiting for the next version of iTunes from Apple, there still seem to be some lingering issues with the recent patches. Of course, by then I might replace the Dell with yet another Mac.

Like the personalise option for changing the display options rather than one window you now get multiple.

That's exactly what I'm referring to. What happened to: right click on the desktop, display properties.

B

[MattJessop]

I think that Vista is a definite improvement over XP in a lot of areas, and certain areas that Apple certainly could do with having a look at themselves (i.e ReadyBoost)

However, one thing that has really kept Vista back, and turned me off is it's legacy code. The default icons look great, and are finally nice to look at, but dig anywhere below the surface and you'll find mismatches and icons still left over from Win 95. The BIGGEST thing that Windows has wrong with it is the registry. Why on earth would you have ALL your settings and variables in one place to be easily corrupted? Anything wrong with the registry and you're p.c refuses to work.

Anybody remember Windows Longhorn? When it first was announced? Brand new code, brand new underlying architecture. The sidebar was actually an extension of the taskbar, and not just full of gadgets. WinFS - basically eliminating the need for indexing, giving instant searches, getting rid of the hierarchical file stuctures, making everything you wanted right at your fingertips? And FINALLY getting rid of all that excess driver luggage?

But then Dell and everybody else forced them back into what became Windows Vista, all because the new Windows Longhorn would have NOTHING to do with the old Windows. Just kinda proves that Microsoft isn't all that powerful. They still rely on sales, just as Apple does, just as the rest of the industry does.

Now, Vista has been a large contributing factor to me switching, but thats not to say it's evil, or bad, it's got some pretty good features that Mac OS X could learn off (and please lets stop this whole YOU COPIED US - you have to copy if you want to improve, isn't that what competition is based on?) It's a shame Microsoft missed their chance to make a brand new OS, not just a evolution of one dating back from 1994.

[flopticalcube]

In response to the OP, how about this for a plausible excuse for the Leopard delay: Vista is such a lame improvement over XP, Apple felt no compulsion to rush out and launch Leopard as Tiger is more than a match for it. At any rate, only Steve and Avie know for sure and they're not about to tell us.

[astranovus]

The only noticeable feature of Vista over XP is Aero, now granted I have only used Home Premium but still it's not a great OS.

To the OP how much RAM did you have in the Macbook? You really need 1-2GB RAM for both OS X and Vista.


2gb ram,

it wasn't that office 2004 was slow. it was just the random fan thing was very irritating.

after powerpoint gave me a nice embarassing full on fan lift off during a presentation at uni, i decided enough is enough and sold my macbook,

my friend has a macbook with similar issues, so i don't think i got a lemon

in all fairness, my brother has an imac and doesn't have these issues, so perhaps it is just a macbook related problem.

i like tiger and apple software in general but I think apple's hardware quality control is very shoddy.

i had 3 replacement macbooks before i got one that was working according to its specs.

[biturbomunkie]

get it right, leopard is delayed b/c iphone. :D

on the other hand, i'd believe that vista is as least as reliable as xp pro. but nevertheless vista sux b/c it doesn't support a lot of things.

[nate13]

yes, vista has eye candy. but after the glamor and wow wears off, what do you have left? i would prefer a OS that had good, core changes. the original longhorn sounded kick ass, to the point that it could rival the mac OS. now, it is just a very pretty XP. try changing the visual settings to classic or w/e. its xp. WOW... nothin like make up to change my user experience. of course, Leopard should put this speculation behind us, because once the full version out i think the 2+ year wait we're on will be worth it.

[eXan]

i moved away from tiger as rosetta got on my nerves under office 2004, my macbook fan was virtually lifting off all the time,

sloppy programming

Sloppy programming?! You obviously dont know what you're talking about. To make a PPC appication run seamlessly on an entire;y different processor architecture is an incredibly hard task. To make it run at only about 1.7x slower than it could have (if it was native) is even harder.

You sould be grateful that it runs at all and blame M$ for not making an UB version of it's Office.

Apple has done an amazing job with making PPC apps run on Intel-based Macs.

[nate13]

Sloppy programming?! You obviously dont know what you're talking about. To make a PPC appication run seamlessly on an entire;y different processor architecture is an incredibly hard task. To make it run at only about 1.7x slower than it could have (if it was native) is even harder.

You sould be grateful that it runs at all and blame M$ for not making an UB version of it's Office.

Apple has done an amazing job with making PPC apps run on Intel-based Macs.
totaly agree with that. it is a feat. even though im still on the PPC, i think that the way that apple has handled the transition is the best in the industry. by far. they didnt bloat at all. so, the only thing to blame for your misforune is MS because of thier lack of intrest in the mac industry.

[Fairly]

vista is not a usability nightmare
Yes it is. You haven't used it yet. Either that or you don't know how the black hats are 0WNing you.
regarding the new office 2007 ribbon,
all staff have to be trained when programmes have new features,

this is nothing vista specific
This sounds expensive. Apps that are or should be self-explanatory and people need training? Where do you work? LOL
to say vista is instabil and a user nightmare, is utter rubbish
No it's not. It's true. Maybe you never turn your glorious box on? That's the only way any product from M$ will ever be secure anyway.
with a bit of thoughtful forethinking
You possess that quality? :D
apple has an advantage as it only has to cater for a very limited range of computers, so stability should naturally be better
So you're astroturfing for M$? What do they pay you anyway? LOL
i moved away from tiger as rosetta got on my nerves under office 2004, my macbook fan was virtually lifting off all the time,

sloppy programming
Oh HORSE PUCKEY. This poster is an intruder. An intruder and a troll.

[Fairly]

Jobs was sidelined by Sculley in 85 and founded NeXT in 86. He returned to Apple in 95 when Apple bought NeXT, long after the decision to switch to PPC had been made.
Facts. Jobs wanted Sculley out and Sculley wanted Jobs out. Jobs wasn't "sidelined" - he was BOOTED.

Also: he didn't return until 1997. The ink dried on the contract in December 1996 but nothing took place until after the new year. Also: Jobs didn't really come back to Apple until July 1997.
No, I believe in myself.
I believe in courage.

[Fairly]

To make a PPC appication run seamlessly on an entire;y different processor architecture is an incredibly hard task.
No it's not. Where do you get that from?

How many programs have YOU ported? :D

[Fairly]

The only noticeable feature of Vista over XP is Aero
No it's not. It's the same thing as Aqua but implemented in the Microsoft way (tm). It requires four times the hardware and doesn't do half the job and it's a clumsy rip-off of an idea that the Microsofties didn't even understand.

M$ still use pixel graphics and integer screen coordinates. NeXTSTEP and now OS X have been using vector graphics and floating point coordinates for almost twenty freaking years. Plus they have their alpha channels for 'shared pixels' and transparency. All M$ have done is try to copy that. Sad but true. But then again you can accuse Bill Gates of a lot of things but one thing you can never accuse him of is being original. :D

[balamw]

No it's not. Where do you get that from?

How many programs have YOU ported? :D
Perhaps you misunderstand what Rosetta (and to a lesser extent Classic before it) do?

Think bochs, not "porting", and if you've ever run anything under emulation liek bochs, you'd know how it's easy to get it working, but NOT as fast as Rosetta.

B

[synth3tik]

If your getting kernal panics on a windows machine then that would be a big deal, so as long as I'm here I have never had a blue screen of death when using OS 10.4, does that mean OSX is better then windows? oh thats right windows Vista doesn't get kernal panics.


:D


Just joshin' ya.

But, no the leopard delay is not because of Vista. All the new features that Vista has came from OS X for the most part. sorry...

[Fairly]

hi,
Hi yourself.
((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))
Oh that's cute.
i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate
No you're not. No one who's left M$ ever comes back. You're an astroturfer employed by Microsoft.
contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista
There's a form of excrement emanating from male cattle and you're full of it.
drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....
You know the words and deal with these issues daily. We'd be proud of you if you weren't such a devious creep.
for me personally vista ultimate is faster
You think speed is going to impress us when your boss' platform has over 100,000 viruses in the wild? Besides: your boss' platform on Parallels on a GOOD (Apple) box is infinitely faster and you know it.
more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger
Oh go away. Are you really so totally deranged that you think that by your saying this people will believe it? GET A NEW JOB. FAR AWAY FROM REDMOND.
could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system
No it can't be. Now eat your own you know what and GO AWAY.

[weg]

You sould be grateful that it runs at all and blame M$ for not making an UB version of it's Office.



You should thank Microsoft for providing Office for the Mac at all.. I don't think they're making an awfull lot of money with it.

[GimmeSlack12]

Our IT Dept refuses to convert to Vista. One of our techs told me he just bought a laptop and had to un-install Vista and put XP on it because he was having to many problems. I guess it's a preference thing.

My work computer came with Vista Business. Its crap. It crashes a lot, and can't even do basic networking with XP machines. The Vista Ultimate costs nearly $400 too doesn't it?

And the eye candy is there, but it isn't functional. I understand you like Windows and whatever, but it is not a finished nor efficient OS.

[DejaVuYou]

hi,

((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))

i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,

contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....

for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,

could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?

any comments welcomed

i've lived in a mac world all my adult life and have always had a windoze laptop around. The last one had Windows XP home on it and that, to me, was a typical PC interface experience.

My new PC laptop has Vista something something and the whole thing seems stable. But so did xp to me. Vista something something seems to be XP with some type of glass effect trying to make me verify everything I even try to do. Seems to me that that thing graying and demanding attention will get very lame very quick. It may also hang up some day doing it.

I'm patiently waiting for Leopard and if it were true that Apple held up Leopard because of Vista, Vista Light, Vista Whatever and Vista This, as per the conspiracy you're putting forth (what really is your motive) then I expect that Leopard would look more like Vista then Tiger and that would be a shame.

I agree with the guy who said it's a personal choice. It always has been. Always will be.

[kiang]

Hi yourself.

Oh that's cute.

No you're not. No one who's left M$ ever comes back. You're an astroturfer employed by Microsoft.

There's a form of excrement emanating from male cattle and you're full of it.

You know the words and deal with these issues daily. We'd be proud of you if you weren't such a devious creep.

You think speed is going to impress us when your boss' platform has over 100,000 viruses in the wild? Besides: your boss' platform on Parallels on a GOOD (Apple) box is infinitely faster and you know it.

Oh go away. Are you really so totally deranged that you think that by your saying this people will believe it? GET A NEW JOB. FAR AWAY FROM REDMOND.

No it can't be. Now eat your own you know what and GO AWAY.

Are you trying to gain respect from others by being a blind apple-fanboy? I already can't stand you. It's OK to be a fanboy, but you're one of the ignorant ones, who just piss me off. You're just like 'Oh! winoze is so crappy! looka t me, I HAVE AN APPLE!I'm KOOLE! PLEASE give me attetion!!'

four letters for you: ****

[Mac-Addict]

What the hell is this dude on about... how the hell would Leopard be delayed because Vista is "good". Even if Vista was good I still don't get how it would in anyway affect the devolpment of Leopard.

Leopard programmer:
"OWWW NOES VISTA IS BETTER THAN LEOPARD!!!!!!!!! WE BETTER STOP WORKIN ON LEOPARD BECAUSE VISTA IS BETTER!!!!!"

[Nermal]

You should thank Microsoft for providing Office for the Mac at all.. I don't think they're making an awfull lot of money with it.

I heard (albeit a few years ago now) that Office for Mac was Microsoft's third most profitable product (behind Windows and Office for Windows).

[Bern]

I'm a little at odds as to why the OP would think the delay of an OS totally unrelated to Mac would delay Leopard :rolleyes: What have you read or heard that would even make you think that? That's like saying Audi aren't releasing they're new model because of Toyota....

If you like Vista then good on you and I hope you get what you need from it. But it seems you may have been fishing for a bit of a stir with this thread.

And let's not forget folks, M$ Word and Excel was originally developed for Macs. Windows wasn't around back then. It wasn't until Windows was released that Word and Excel were re-coded for windows.

[Cromulent]

Are you trying to gain respect from others by being a blind apple-fanboy? I already can't stand you. It's OK to be a fanboy, but you're one of the ignorant ones, who just piss me off. You're just like 'Oh! winoze is so crappy! looka t me, I HAVE AN APPLE!I'm KOOLE! PLEASE give me attetion!!'

four letters for you: ****

Hahaha. So true. Remember you need substance if you want to flame people :).

[SpaceMagic]

I just thought I'd say something for Vista.

I'm a mac user and always will be as I prefer the OS in general.

However, in my General User experience Vista is a lot faster than OS X at many things, especially web page rendering and just opening folders with lots of files (in fact, i was just playing on my iBook 366 G3 clamshell OS 9.2.2 and noticed how fast folder opening is on that too, why the step back with OS X?).

On the other side, doing stuff on windows is a logistical nightmare, with pop ups asking whether you need your bum wiped and what not.

So Vista Faster? Yes
Vista better? No.

[aristobrat]

What the hell is this dude on about... how the hell would Leopard be delayed because Vista is "good". Even if Vista was good I still don't get how it would in anyway affect the devolpment of Leopard.

Leopard programmer:
"OWWW NOES VISTA IS BETTER THAN LEOPARD!!!!!!!!! WE BETTER STOP WORKIN ON LEOPARD BECAUSE VISTA IS BETTER!!!!!"
Maybe the OP's thought was that Apple thought Vista really was better than they expected, so now they've delayed Leopard so that they can add additional features to Leopard (that they didn't plan on originally including) in order to make Leopard seem like a big leap over Vista.

[astranovus]

Maybe the OP's thought was that Apple thought Vista really was better than they expected, so now they've delayed Leopard so that they can add additional features to Leopard (that they didn't plan on originally including) in order to make Leopard seem like a big leap over Vista.


Yes my friend that is exactly what I am trying to say, god knows where all the other stuff in the thread answers comes from.

[kiang]

I'm a little at odds as to why the OP would think the delay of an OS totally unrelated to Mac would delay Leopard :rolleyes: What have you read or heard that would even make you think that? That's like saying Audi aren't releasing they're new model because of Toyota....

If you like Vista then good on you and I hope you get what you need from it. But it seems you may have been fishing for a bit of a stir with this thread.

And let's not forget folks, M$ Word and Excel was originally developed for Macs. Windows wasn't around back then. It wasn't until Windows was released that Word and Excel were re-coded for windows.
Actually, windows was around back then.
Office 1.0was released in 1990for the mac, while windows 1.0 was already released in 1985(as a mere dysfunctional copy of the Mac OS).
the first Office designed for the windows platform was Office 3.0, in august 1992, just months after they released Office 2.0 for the Mac platform.
this was just a stunt so they could say to the costumers that the windows version was better, seen it was 3.0 while mac only had 2.0.

[andiwm2003]

wow, the thread has become hostile quite fast. but that was (sadly) to be expected.

i'm sure that vista puts a lot of pressure on apple to make a better system. OS X is almost the only reason to buy apple hardware. so in a way vista forces apple to make a better system with more features and that takes more time. and vista (and also windows XP) is not that bad. if someone can take care of the system it will run just fine.

i doubt that that is the reason for this specific 4 month delay. i think that is more related to the complexity of the task and the necessary integration of the iphone and maybe stability issues.


my two cents.

[kiang]

wow, the thread has become hostile quite fast. but that was (sadly) to be expected.

i'm sure that vista puts a lot of pressure on apple to make a better system. OS X is almost the only reason to buy apple hardware. so in a way vista forces apple to make a better system with more features and that takes more time. and vista (and also windows XP) is not that bad. if someone can take care of the system it will run just fine.

i doubt that that is the reason for this specific 4 month delay. i think that is more related to the complexity of the task and the necessary integration of the iphone and maybe stability issues.


my two cents.
most honest, mature and true reaction in this thread :p
though I prefer the look and feel OSX, windows isn't that bad, as long as you can take care of it. in a way, you can say windows is a responsible people-only OS, while OSX is more (boy, I'm gonna get it for this one :p) fool-safe :p
sure, as a system on itself (so if you don't look at compatibility) , IMO OSX beats the crap out of windows on every aspect, but that doesn't mean windows is pure crap.
You can't deny MS has made Windows better with the release of Vista, compared to XP, so sure apple has to keep on making revolutionary things to maintain the distance between them and MS.

All in short: vista sure takes windows a step ahead, but IMO, Vista is still behind Tiger, and Leopard isn't delayed because of Vista. Leopard will kick the **** out of Vista :p

[benpatient]

My brother goes to Belmont University in Tennessee, and they sent an email out to all students saying that no one is allowed to upgrade to Vista or Office '07, that it is considered an unstable operating system.

They even went as far as establishing a network-wide block that blocks Windows Vista from accessing the school network.

Oh well, 93% of the campus students (including my brother) use Macs. :)

whoops. you shouldn't lie...someone might know about it and call you on it!

...just so happens I know better. Campus IT sent out a message recommending that students and faculty hold off on upgrading to Vista until they were sure that the Belmont-specific applications that students often need to use are updated to properly work on a 32-bit system. Some of the old code is 16-bit, and Vista doesn't support 16-bit apps.

Furthermore, campus computer labs that run Windows will not be upgraded to Vista until new machines come in from their pc-based supplier, Dell. As new machines are purchased to replace old machines, they will be outfitted with Vista. Based on their upgrade schedule, this will be a 2-year process. This is because they are still running some hardware configurations in labs that don't support DirectX 9-level graphics. (a GeForce 5200 is better than most of these machines' integrated graphics chips!)

There is no network "blocking" of Vista in place. There is no restriction against using Vista in your dorm room or for faculty to use a Vista-based machine. But the school isn't officially supporting it until later this year from an IT standpoint.

There aren't many Macs available for "public" use at Belmont. The Humanities lab has Macs in it, and i think there are a couple more scattered around campus. A few of the students I know at Belmont use a Mac. It most certainly isn't "93%"!!! Why on earth would you go making this stuff up? Did you figure nobody who would read this had ever gone to Belmont, or maybe dated someone who goes there, or knew a guy who knew a guy? If your brother really told you that stuff, he lied to you. Otherwise, you're lying for him, which is lame. The two biggest labs on campus are in McWhorter and Massey. And they are full to the brim with stinkin' Dells.

http://www.belmont.edu/its/vista.html
That's a link to the current Belmont IT stance on Vista. They aren't outlawing Vista. They don't think it's an "unstable OS." They don't block it from the campus network. In fact, I encourage you to visit this link as well:

http://www.belmont.edu/its/laptop/index.html
Yes, folks, it's the Belmont New Student Laptop Program! The program offers 2 options:

For $1450, you can get a Dell Latitude D630, 2Ghz, 2GB, 80GB, 8X DVD±RW with 3-year on-site warranty and accident coverage and Windows VISTA BUSINESS EDITION preinstalled.

The other option is the 13" Macbook with 1 GB, 80GB for $1510.

The IT guys at Belmont that I know would recommend the Macbook mainly because you can also install Windows on it, which you can't legally do on the Dell. Sorry that I had to call you out, man.

[aristobrat]

The other option is the 13" Macbook with 1 GB, 80GB for $1510.

And it comes with a 3-year "warrenty"? You'd think that someone at a college would spell-check their web pages better before publishing them? :D

[benpatient]

IT people aren't always the best spellers in the world, are they?

[scaredpoet]

vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle,

From what I've seen, that would make exactly one of you.

For the record, I have moved from XP to Windows Vista Ultimate on my home desktop computer. Is it working now? Yes... mostly. Do I regret the switch? Yes... deeply.

I didn't experience any kernel panics, and thankfully I didn't lose any data. however, it did take over two months to get my desktop anywhere close to the functional level I enjoyed under Windows XP.

Why? Device drivers. Or rather, the lack thereof. The windows world was and still is sorely unprepared for the x64 platform despite the fact that nearly all current desktops are made with 64-bit processors now, and the dearth of 64-bit drivers for simple things like sound cards, printers and scanners is appalling. Equally appalling is Microsoft's inability to get some elvel of backward compatibility with the bevy of 32-bit drivers that are out there for these same devices.

There are still some devices and components for which no drivers exist, and apparently never will exist. Some of those components happen to be embedded onto my motherboard. So for as long as I own this desktop (which is less than six months old, so it'll be awhile before I upgrade), I will forever be greeted with a "I couldn't find this device driver, what do you want to do?" message every time I boot my computer.

As for the Vista "eye candy," yeah, it's all right I suppose, but of no real functional use. I have noticed a performance decrease that comes from using the Aero glass interface on my desktop, even though the Windows Vista readiness tool assured me that it would work just fine on my machine. All in all, the pretty looks have slowed down my desktop somewhat.

Compare this to OS X. Each new version of OS X has added new features and more complex "eye candy," while running cleaner and performing better on older supported hardware. Newer operating systems that don't bog down older machines is unheard of in the windows world, yet it's a fact of life on OS X.

I could go on for pages about the issues I have with Vista. None of the issues are particularly crippling, but they are annoying, and the benefits of running Vista do not outweigh the significant drawbacks.

Frankly, the only reason I continue to use Vista Ultimate is because I was stupid enough to pay for it, and since there are no refunds once the software is opened, I feel as though I should at least try to get my money's worth.

That said, Vista and all of its deficiencies are the main reason I bought a MacBook Pro. It was time for me to upgrade my laptop computer, and after my ordeal getting Vista to work right, I was not about to spend more money on a laptop with the same deficiencies. And when I do finally buy a new desktop, it will probably be a Mac as well. Yes, the hardware is expensive, but so was Vista Ultimate, and frankly, I feel I more than got my money's worth with Apple.

Apple didn't convert me to Apple. Microsoft did.



regarding the new office 2007 ribbon,
all staff have to be trained when programmes have new features,
this is nothing vista specific

This I'll agree with you on. I actually like Office 2007 greatly, and can't wait for it to show up for the Mac. I thin the reluctance to adopt it is partly because MS associates it so much with Vista, and Vista has left such a bad taste in people's mouths. That and people automatically assume that the ribbon and new interface means it's going to be hard to re-learn. I've used Office since 97, and while I had my reservations with the new interface initially, those concerns disappeared in about 5 minutes. I needed no formal re-training to get comfortable.


to say vista is instabil and a user nightmare, is utter rubbish, with a bit of thoughtful forethinking, vista runs great

It's not utter rubbish at all. I'm not sure what hardware you're running or how you upgraded, but if you say you had absolutely no problems, I'd say you're either a liar or very, very lucky.


apple has an advantage as it only has to cater for a very limited range of computers, so stability should naturally be better,

This argument doesn't hold water. At the base, windows machines are equally narrow in their scope. In fact, often times the same factory that makes Dell hardware will also make HP or Gateway hardware. The only thing changing is the exterior cladding and brand markings.

This also doesn't explain that, after two service packs, XP runs quite stable under nearly all the hardware it runs on, yet the moment people try to run Vista, stability flies out the window.

i moved away from tiger as rosetta got on my nerves under office 2004, my macbook fan was virtually lifting off all the time,
sloppy programming

Yes, Microsoft was very sloppy in how they programmed Office 2004. Shame on them. :)

Bottom line: Was leopard delayed because Vista is a better OS? I doubt it, considering that I feel even Tiger is a far better OS that Vista is, after having used both. Apple has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, I am very concerned about what Microsoft is going to do about Vista.

If you ask me, Microsoft's Windows platform is suffering from a severe case of Second System Syndrome, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_system_syndrome) and that's a very dangerous thing. Apple had this same problem back in the days of 68k processors and OS 7, and the only way they recovered was to buy NEXT, which ultimately resulted in what we now know as OS X. Microsoft seems too proud to do something similar, so I'm not sure how (or if) they will recover.

[astranovus]

thank you for your mannered discussion "scaredpoet",

i take your point on some of the vista stuff,

i disagree on apple's advantage of only having to cater for very few computer lines rebuttle.

as far as my problem-free upgrade to vista goes,
perhaps i got lucky, but then again perhaps i read things up before i did it.

i just merely wanted to point out that upgrades are possible without any major catastrophes.

many people have stated that they have performance losses under vista due to aero,

performance gains from using multi-cores under vista outweigh this though, as this is an area xp is pants at.

[Cromulent]

many people have stated that they have performance losses under vista due to aero,

performance gains from using multi-cores under vista outweigh this though, as this is an area xp is pants at.

Have you got any evidence to back this claim up with though? XP Pro was designed to take full advantage of multiprocessor and multicore systems. There is no evidence to suggest that Vista handles multithreaded applications better than Windows XP Pro.

[matthew24]

This week I asked a guy what his experiences were with Vista, he has used it, it was considerable slower then XP and he went back to XP.

His PC: P4 3.0Ghz, 1GB internal memory and a very good video-card.
Conclusion, Vista needs the core-duo, to have some acceptable performance.
Imagine, it needs a processor with 2 cores just to run the OS and to be able to compete with XP.

( Compare this with OSX which runs very decent on a G4/600Mhz )

:o

Windows at home. > After using OSX over an extended period of time, why even bother?

[dvince2]

That's like saying Audi aren't releasing they're new model because of Toyota....

Their.

I'm not going to get into the debate whether or not this is true, but if it is true...it scares me. That means that they delayed the OS four months to add pointless "Vista-crushing" features.... which will go untested as the beta is released at WWDC. That doesn't sound like an Apple move...

[Realization... oops... i guess I did join the debate :p ]

-Vince

[TBi]

This argument doesn't hold water. At the base, windows machines are equally narrow in their scope. In fact, often times the same factory that makes Dell hardware will also make HP or Gateway hardware. The only thing changing is the exterior cladding and brand markings.

This also doesn't explain that, after two service packs, XP runs quite stable under nearly all the hardware it runs on, yet the moment people try to run Vista, stability flies out the window.

Every time a new release of OSX comes out i hear stories of people who have issues with it. So much so that people usually wait for the next point release before buying new versions. Sounds quite similar to Vista here. Then again Vista has been very stable for me.

As to your argument about Dell, HP and Gateway all being made in the same place. This is true to a point but they all use different hardware. Some of them use VIA based motherboards which can be very temperamental. Also they tend to use lower quality components than apple does which makes them more unstable.

Most problems with windows comes from poor hardware and drivers, not from windows itself. Most of the problems i see aren't from Dell computers but from custom made computers and computers bought in small shops. Whenever i see computers with windows problems they are usually built on a non intel based system.

Intel makes expensive hardware, but you get what you pay for in regards to stability. It's very rarely you see intel based computers having problems with windows. The most striking example of this is how well Windows runs on intel Mac's.

OSX runs on a few special made systems which apple guarantees to be of high standard and stable. Windows has to run on all these plus shoddy motherboards which are just unstable.

[gnasher729]

hi,

((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))

i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,

contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....

for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,

could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?

any comments welcomed

Several of my colleagues, who each know about ten times more about operating systems than the average user, have tried Windows Vista and have switched back to Windows XP. I actually don't know anyone who switched from XP to Vista and stayed.

[gnasher729]

I doubt it. Apple probably had access to the Vista beta builds and had information about it long before it was released. The same is probably true of Microsoft and Leopard. Do you think that either company would not invest in full developer subscriptions to the other?

I don't know about Microsoft, but everything you get from Apple is under some NDA, even the free online ADC account. I'd really be curious how that works within a company, where the NDA most likely means you can't even tell some colleagues.

[Dagless]

vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle,

Wow. Now heres my backstory so you don't shoot me down-

Windows user since 1995, always upgraded to the latest Windows. Got a Mac in 2004 to compliment (not replace) my PC. I now dual boot with OSX and XP. I use and enjoy both OS's.
-phew-

Anyway. Vista is utter tripe. As an XP user since day 1 (even on it now) I just cannot get used to Vista. The Start Menu, arguably Windows Achilles Heel for speed and usability, has been changed. That threw me off. Plus the new "window fade in" effects are hideous to use. Flip3D is a nightmare.

I can honestly not see a single benefit in upgrading to Vista. MS really have dropped the ball. They went from fluidity and uglyness to slow and further uglyness.

Unless the Enterprise edition I use at work is different to Vista "Ultimate"?

This thread must be a joke. I'm open minded and have found Vista to be worthless and a diseased clone of OSX.

[elppa]

Apple is proactive, not reactive.

It's not in their philosophy to behave that way.

Much of that philosophy comes from the culture at the company and much of that culture comes from leader and founder Steve Jobs.

A lot of the things in Vista are reactive to what the Mac and other OS vendors are doing. This is part of MS's "me too" approach which can be traced back to the days they brought the Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS) and repackaged so they had something to sell IBM.

MS has brought Vista to market and have caught up with some things Apple and others have had for many years. It is a decent effort (not without flaws). Well Done MS!

That said the outside world hasn't stood still and have pushed forward with their own innovations. No one looks to MS to lead the way, nor have they ever done.

[psychofreak]

Apple is proactive, not reactive.

It's not in their philosophy to behave that way.
And BootCamp didn't have anything to do with the OnMac project...

Apple always (rightly) react to virus threats...they are greatly affected by others...

[elppa]

And BootCamp didn't have anything to do with the OnMac project...

Apple always (rightly) react to virus threats...they are greatly affected by others...

They always knew it was technically possible (and probably how to do it).

My guess is BootCamp would have been conceived by Apple before the OnMac project got underway (we will never no the truth as it is difficult to prove either way).

My point is that, whilst not universally true, more often than not Apple often looks internally for new ideas (or new ways to implement existing ideas) whereas MS seems to be constantly playing catch up.

A key example is iPhone. Apple said — what can we do with the cell phone, we don't really like what is out there at present, how can we change it and make users lives better?*

Then, following the unveiling, MS decided they were going to do a ZunePhone, in a me-too response.

[TBi]

And BootCamp didn't have anything to do with the OnMac project...

Apple always (rightly) react to virus threats...they are greatly affected by others...

I always assumed the delay between the release of the intel macs and bootcamp was for apple to do testing on firmware, drivers and stability to make sure everything worked out of the box as you'd expect from apple. They probably put a lot of man hours into it to make sure everything went right from the start.

You could argue as to why they didn't do all this before the intel macs came out but if you remember they came out early and the guys at apple were probably focused solely on getting OSX working as well as possible on these machines.

[GFLPraxis]

vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle,

regarding the new office 2007 ribbon,
all staff have to be trained when programmes have new features,

this is nothing vista specific

to say vista is instabil and a user nightmare, is utter rubbish, with a bit of thoughtful forethinking, vista runs great

apple has an advantage as it only has to cater for a very limited range of computers, so stability should naturally be better,

i moved away from tiger as rosetta got on my nerves under office 2004, my macbook fan was virtually lifting off all the time,

sloppy programming

Sloppy programming? ROFL. Perhaps on Microsoft's part, because they never released an update. It's running under emulation; Rosetta performs spectacularly, easily three or four times faster than any emulator I've ever encountered.

Office 2008 for Mac will perform at full speed.

I work at a medical IT company; first thing we do when we get a new Vista machine is reimage it to XP. We're not going to talk about Vista for eighteen months.

[scaredpoet]

i take your point on some of the vista stuff,

i disagree on apple's advantage of only having to cater for very few computer lines rebuttle.

Then rebut it. Why do you disagree? Can you point out what in the x86 Windows architecture makes it so much more complex to handle than the x86 architecture for Mac? You made the point, so I assume you have some facts and specific examples to back it up.


as far as my problem-free upgrade to vista goes,
perhaps i got lucky, but then again perhaps i read things up before i did it.

I assume by "read things up" you mean "do your research." I did. I read the MS documentation. I ran the system evaluator. I downloaded all the purported Vista friendly device drivers I could find and had them on hand before installation. And yet, I still had problems. Most ended up being resolved after a long time, but if I had to do it all over again, I certainly wouldn't.

i just merely wanted to point out that upgrades are possible without any major catastrophes.

Okay well, how did you upgrade then? Did you just throw the install disc into the machine and run an upgrade? Did you format and start from scratch? What is the architecture of the workstation?

Also, it would appear that you shining example of a perfectly trouble-free workstation running Vista counters your other point that Wintel architectures are just too complex to run well on. What makes your hardware different from what's coming down the production lines now? I'm sure many PC manufacturers could learn from your configuration.

many people have stated that they have performance losses under vista due to aero,
performance gains from using multi-cores under vista outweigh this though, as this is an area xp is pants at.

"Pants?" Whatever that means. But my multi core processor was running much smoother under XP than it is now under Vista. Furthermore, OS X seems perfectly okay with running many of the same effects on intergrated graphics architecture that Microsoft would say was impossible to run Aero on. Why is that?

By the way, I did have my first Blue screen under Vista today. it suddenly decided it had an aversion to Firefox and YouTube, for some reason. *shrug*

[RacerX]

as far as my problem-free upgrade to vista goes,
perhaps i got lucky, but then again perhaps i read things up before i did it.

i just merely wanted to point out that upgrades are possible without any major catastrophes.There is an upgrade path from Mac OS X to Windows Vista? :eek:

:rolleyes:

I always find it funny to see a thread like this one. It makes me wonder why PC users feel a need to post on Mac forums pretending to be Mac users who have moved to Windows.

In the case of our original poster, at one point he asserts..."i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate"Only to later address another posters comments with this..."vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle"And this totally over looks the fact that this former Mac user is only now finding (and becoming a member) of a Mac forum after his switch to Windows (but somehow instinctively already knows about flaming).

At the very least a thread like this one could have been held with the original poster not attempting to impersonate a former Mac user. An honest discussion of the topic is always better than one based on deception.


As for performance issues with Vista, almost all of them seem to stem from Microsoft's draconian DRM subsystems rather than any features designed to enhance the system for users.

[Nym]

hi,

((flame-suit protect-mode on :-)))

i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,

contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....

for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,

could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?

any comments welcomed

JESUS LORD! You must have a secret Windows Vista version then!

I installed Vista about 3 weeks ago and I've had more than 5 system crashes, 3 program lock-ups and a nice BSOD. Here's my story:

At first I thought : "yeah, Vista is looking nice with this glass effect and etc" but then the UAC started boinking every god damn minute! Ok, I was tolerant, let's give it a shot, accept that this UAC stuff is for my protection...

Open Windows Media Player, play a song, ok, nothing wrong (a band mate calls, PC user BTW) and I was like "Hey man, I'm trying out Vista" and he says "You replaced XP? you're going to be sorry in about a week" and I go "ok, what is it that you want? need a flyer for the concert on friday, ok, give me the details". I open notepad to type in the details (date, time, price, etc), and in the background Windows Media Player stops responding, ok, I let it go and keep typying what he was saying in Notepad. He says "Ok, you got it all? See you on Friday then", as soon has he hangs up the phone I press CTRL + S to save the text document.. oh no.. Notepad is not responding too!!!!

I press the X to close Windows Media Player and nothing happens, it just won't close, CTRL + ALT + DELETE, Task Manager, End Process, nothing.. the app is still there grinding god knows what.. the same thing with Notepad. I ended up having to turn off the computer in the box because not even pressing Restart would help as it would stall when trying to quit the frozen apps so the OS could reboot.

Windows Vista should be called Windows Vista BETA!

This is a 100% true story, and don't even get me started in the 40 FPS drop I got from Vista while playing Counter Strike:Source, even with Aero and Sidebar OFF.

I never I'd say this but, compared to Vista, XP RULES!!

What a crap OS... /rant off/

[astranovus]

There is an upgrade path from Mac OS X to Windows Vista? :eek:


In the case of our original poster, at one point he asserts..."i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate"Only to later address another posters comments with this..."vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle"And this totally over looks the fact that this former Mac user is only now finding (and becoming a member) of a Mac forum after his switch to Windows (but somehow instinctively already knows about flaming).



??

i went from xp to macos about 8 months ago,
macos was nice but the macbook hardware let me down big time, 1 broken macbook pro, 4 broken macbooks and a broken acd 20"

funny enough some people keep there windows pcs just in case they don't get on with macs,

hence i decided to upgrade from a former xp installation to vista,

why would that be strange?

by the way i've been registered for while on this board, and it was really helpful whilst i still had a mac

i intend to stay, to source out whether leopard and any new apple hardware are worthy of buying.

[Cromulent]

I don't know about Microsoft, but everything you get from Apple is under some NDA, even the free online ADC account. I'd really be curious how that works within a company, where the NDA most likely means you can't even tell some colleagues.

I would assume that Microsoft would pay for developer accounts for everyone that needed to know that information thus making the NDA a non issue.

[MagicUK]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/23/vista_program_naming_oddness/

By John Leyden ? More by this author
Published Monday 23rd April 2007 11:47 GMT
The Legal Risks of Uncontrolled Web Use and Email Content - Free whitepaper
Developers have discovered that the name given to a Vista executable affects whether or not it will require admin rights to run.
Security experts said the feature might seem odd, but helps to catch out spyware.

Reg Reader Mike, a C++ developer, discovered the behaviour after spending days trying to work out why just some of his projects required elevation (admin rights) to be run on his Windows Vista machine. To his disbelief, Mike realised that the different properties were simply due to projects being named differently.
"If Vista sees that you have created a Microsoft Visual C++ project with install in the project name, then that .exe will automatically require Admin Rights to run. Create exactly the same project, but call it, say, Fred, and the problem disappears," he explained. "Vista's security isn't just concerned with what an .exe is doing to your PC, but what it's actually called."
Mr Executable
We put these points to Microsoft, which responded with a statement that explained why installation programs might need admin privileges to run but not why this changes depending on the name given to a project.
"Installation programs are applications designed to deploy software, and most write to system directories and registry keys. These protected system locations are typically writable only by an administrator user, which means that standard users do not have sufficient access to install programs. Windows Vista heuristically detects installation programs and requests administrator credentials or approval from the administrator user in order to run with access privileges. Windows Vista also heuristically detects updater and uninstallation programs. Note that a design goal of UAC [User Account Control] is to prevent installations from being executed without the user's knowledge and consent since they write to protected areas of the file system and registry," it said.
Secure coding specialist Fortify Software said Microsoft's Installer Detection technology acted as a screen against spyware. While imperfect, and odd in the way its behaviour is affected by the names given to project, the feature is better than nothing.
"The Vista feature you've run into is the equivalent of an airport metal detector," explained Dr Brian Chess, chief scientist at Fortify Software
Spyware is a big problem on Windows (yet another reason I have a Mac), and Vista takes steps to make spyware harder to write. By default, programs under Vista don't run with administrator privileges. By requiring administrator privileges to run something that looks like an installer, Vista is making it more difficult for a program to automatically throw some unsavoury gunk on to your machine without your knowledge.
He added that although the feature is imperfect and inconvenient, it's "better than nothing".
Clarification
Changing the name of a compiled executable doesn't change its properties. But different names during the app development process do have an effect, as Mike explains.
If I use Visual C++ to compile a program called, say, "Mikes Installer.exe", then Vista will popup the security message, drag'n'drop won't work (as it requires extra security rights), and if may app asks which version of the OS it's running on, then Vista will tell it that it's Windows XP.
If I recompile the app as "Mike.exe", then these problems all go away, and Vista correctly tells my app that it's running on Windows Vista. Simply renaming the file from "Mikes Installer.exe" to "Mike.exe" isn't enough to solve the problems. Vista still (somehow) knows that the original filename had install in it's name.
I wasn't simply trying to do some simple Microsoft-bashing. This is all simply all about the filename of your .exe's affecting the way they run in Vista. But the solution is to build your .exe files in Visual C++ with a different filename, or to add a Manifest .xml file, as some of your readers did mention.

[astranovus]

what a load of tosh!
why is this relevant to this thread?

[yg17]

Ahh, Vista, aka Windows ME Pt. 2. The red headed bastard of a stepchild that never should've been.

Vista's a joke. I have unfortunately had the experience of using it. I had it installed on my iMac at one point to see what the hype was about. First of all, UAC. I don't need to say much here, other than ****** UAC to put it bluntly. It shouldn't exist. It serves no purpose. 2 types of people in this world: Those who know what they're doing. We disable UAC because we're not going to do something stupid like open attachments from people we don't know. Those who do not know what they're doing and keep UAC enabled. They'll eventually get desensitized, clicking "Allow" for everything. Oops, they just allowed that mysterious exe that was e-mailed to them to execute.

Second, the UI. What a cluttered mess. I know XP very well, just as well as I know OSX. I work at my university's helpdesk, so I use it every day, and support it every day. So I was rather shocked when I had difficulty finding certain things, such as Network Connections, wallpaper settings, etc, in Vista. Change is good. But Microsoft screwed this one up too. The interface in Explorer, especially the control panel, is cluttered, crap is scattered all over the place, and it's impossible to find anything. The search option in OSX's System Preferences is a nice touch, but I've never found the need to use it because it's intuitive and everything is right where you expect it. In Vista, the search came in quite handy because things that should be right there are hidden somewhere in the depths of operating system hell.

And where's Start->Run? That's a power user's best friend. In XP, I can do Start->Run->cmd->ipconfig /all with my eyes closed. Real handy when troubleshooting network problems. But now, I either have to wade through a million menus, or use the little search thing in the Start menu which takes a few seconds to find cmd and dump it in the search results. The new start menu sucks anyways. I preferred the separate menus. It made it extremely easy to just quickly go through and find what you're looking for. Now if you navigate to the wrong folder, you have to go down and click Back rather than just move the mouse.

I could go on and on and on, but I won't. However, no Vista rant would be complete without saying the UI is a bunch of useless eye candy and that it sucks. But since that's already been done, I'll end that there.

And to whoever said that Rosetta is sloppy programming? Perhaps you need a lesson in how computers work. Translating an executable from one architecture to another, completely different architecture is no easy feat, and the fact that Apple could do it seamlessly and transparently to the end user is just nothing short of amazing. It's not Apple's fault that programmers are lazy and taking their time releasing UB versions. Developers had a little over 6 months to convert their stuff to UB (And it wouldn't surprise me if the big companies like Adobe and M$ knew long before the switch was announced and had developer x86 machines), and now we're almost 2 years past the announcement and M$ still hasn't released a UB version of Office. And this is Apple's fault how? And FWIW, Office 2004 runs fine under Rosetta on my iMac.

[DavidLeblond]

I forget that my copy of Office 2k4 even runs with Rosetta sometimes.

I can run Mac Word, Mac Excel, and Parallels running Windows XP with Visual Studio in it and all applications run smoothly. Thats 2 emulated programs, 2 operating systems, and 1 full development environment. All this on a consumer computer.

I do that all the time.

So how is Rosetta inefficient?

[jdechko]

This I'll agree with you on. I actually like Office 2007 greatly, and can't wait for it to show up for the Mac. I thin the reluctance to adopt it is partly because MS associates it so much with Vista, and Vista has left such a bad taste in people's mouths. That and people automatically assume that the ribbon and new interface means it's going to be hard to re-learn. I've used Office since 97, and while I had my reservations with the new interface initially, those concerns disappeared in about 5 minutes. I needed no formal re-training to get comfortable.

Slightly off topic, but did Microsoft ever implement an auto-hide feature for the ribbon? I used the 2007 beta (or maybe it was a trial) and I liked the ribbon a lot, but the "Hide the ribbon" feature would never stick. I'd hide the ribbon, and after clicking on another command, the ribbon wouldn't hide again. A frustrating thing.

In any case, I may just go with iWork '07/'08 (assuming they implement a spreadsheet program). 100% MS office compatibility is no longer a concern of mine, and I don't even use an office suite that often. And I'd rather do iWork than OOo or NeoOffice.

[mahashel]

I have a G4 iBook running Tiger, as well as a 3GHz Athlon PC running Vista.

They both work great for what I use them for.
iBook is my internet & productivity machine, while the Vista box is my gaming/rendering machine.

To be fair: there were no Vista drivers for my aging SoundBlaster Live! card, but that's Creative's fault, not Microsoft's. (Creative is intentionally balking at driver support for a vast number of their legacy products in order to improve sales of their latest gear) I was able to get it working, but it took a bit of scrounging.

According to Apple, Leopard was postponed due to iPhone.. no more.. no less.
To wholeheartedly believe that may be a naive move, but even if there is a hidden agenda I sincerely doubt it has *anything* to do with Vista.

[darkcurse]

Anyone who knows SDLC(Software Developement Life Cycle) will know that 4 months is not enough time to change major portions of a software, let alone an operating system and test it to make sure that it runs properly. That Vista runs perfectly for the OP is nice to hear after all the horror stories I have heard. Though personally I won't touch Vista till at least SP1. Touch in a sense of do any work on it. OSX is and for the considerable future be my main OS.

[yg17]

regarding the new office 2007 ribbon,
all staff have to be trained when programmes have new features

Since when was the ribbon a feature? It's a useless change to the UI and only complicates things for users.

But, I have to give M$ some credit. If it wasn't for dumb things like this and software that's buggy, insecure and likes to break on its own, us IT guys wouldn't have jobs. Thank you Microsoft for providing job security.

[DavidLeblond]

Slightly off topic, but did Microsoft ever implement an auto-hide feature for the ribbon? I used the 2007 beta (or maybe it was a trial) and I liked the ribbon a lot, but the "Hide the ribbon" feature would never stick. I'd hide the ribbon, and after clicking on another command, the ribbon wouldn't hide again. A frustrating thing.

Hrmm sounds like the ribbon must have been built on their existing docking technology. I fight with the dockable windows in VS.NET 2005 daily, most of the time the only way to get the buggers to go away is to pin and then unpin them.

[zero2dash]

Vista has nothing to do with the Leopard delay, other than to show by example that Microsoft releases unfinished software and Apple does not. :p

I've reformatted and installed XP over Vista on two new computers that friends have bought, and tried several builds of Vista (including the release candidate) on several machines and had the same end result which is that (IMO) Vista is trash.

It's a cutesy gloss coating on a pile of crap.

If a program requires Administrator priviledges? Whoops. Won't run under Vista.

Working with font software? Can't do it. As a graphic designer, this is a requirement. Ergo, Vista is unusable for graphic designers.

Does it outperform XP? No. This has been proven many times over by reputable tech sites out there. The only instance when Vista outperforms XP is with 4+ gigs of ram (and who has that much ram on a Windows machine?). Otherwise, XP is as fast or faster than XP on weaker hardware.

The UI changes are absurd. Networking used to be so easy to navigate; now I wonder where the floating string with cheese at the end is whenever I try to do something as simple as changing an IP address for a network adapter. That rudimentary task used to require...2 steps? Now there's about 6 or 7 and 4 or 5 windows to go through. Ridiculous.

If you enjoy Vista, continue enjoying it. I won't touch it with a ten foot pole until a) they release SP1 and b) they rework the annoyances.

[jdechko]

...If you enjoy Vista, continue enjoying it. I won't touch it with a ten foot pole until a) they release SP1 and b) they rework the annoyances.

Which is why I'll strongly suggest that the next computer my parents purchase for home use will be a Mac (either mini or iMac). I'm to the point where I'm sick and tired of troubleshooting Windows crap for them. Heck, I get enough of it at the office and I'm not even really the IT guy. (And I totally understand where you're coming from, zero2dash, about the totally unnecessary changes to networking in Vista. String with cheese indeed).

[JFreak]

Well i'm sure if apple had spent 5 years making tiger, it would have been one hell of an operating system

Actually, Apple spent 5 years making it and it *is* one hell of an OS.

Considering pre-Jaguar systems "beta" (compare to XP if you like) and counting from official "death of classic Mac OS" in 2002 — Apple has now had 5 years making OSX the way they want to. In that regard, Leopard is directly comparable to Vista and I'm sure it will rock.

The difference being Microsoft has not put out anything but a service pack during these years, while Apple has managed to release two systems in between. Many share the opinion that Microsoft didn't have to, because its system has already matured whereas Apple has a fairly new system with OSX. Surely it was long in development under NeXT and even the 10.1 system was "usable". Nonetheless, according to Steve Jobs, it was "Jaguar" that was good enough to let OS9 die (and IMO it was Panther that made it complete). And just the same way, Tiger was just a preview to Leopard — and once released, 10.5 will be around for at least 2 years, perhaps more.

I'd take Tiger over Vista any day, not to mention Leopard.

[topgunn]

I am an IT director and I felt it was my responsibility to become as familar with Vista as I am with XP, 2000, Me, 98, 95, NT. I figured the best way to do this is to install Vista Business on my laptop. I have had enough problems that I have been forced to install XP on a seperate partition when I actually need to get work done.

The biggest problems I have all have to do with networking. I have had a few problems with drivers but most of those have now been resolved. We have a few older apps that we use but you can choose to run them using "Windows XP SP2 Compatibility" mode. But right now, the networking issues kill the deal for me. I try to spend most of my time in Vista but it is getting harder and harder

The same thing happened when XP came out. I wiped my drive clean in frustration 5+ times and went back to Windows 98. Eventually, MS fixed their issues and XP turned out to be a pretty solid OS. I have no doubt that give 6-12 months, Vista will also be a solid useable OS that will be preferred over XP by all but a handful of people.

[JFreak]

I have no doubt that give 6-12 months, Vista will also be a solid useable OS that will be preferred over XP by all but a handful of people.

First of all, "the new one" should be preferred since the day it comes out. If the company does a good job, that should always be the case. The fact that it isn't proves that Microsoft has failed with Vista and is now only trying to fix its faults.

Second, I believe there comes a time very soon when XP becomes hard to get and its support for new hardware might also become worse as time goes by. You are giving Vista "up to a year" to be usable, but after that, is XP really even an option? People learn to deal with Vista because many of them have to.

To summarise; Microsoft keeps IT staff at work ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Second, I believe there comes a time very soon when XP becomes hard to get and its support for new hardware might also become worse as time goes by.

Can you purchase a new OEM PC with XP installed anymore? I'd be very surprised if you could.

[TBi]

First of all, "the new one" should be preferred since the day it comes out. If the company does a good job, that should always be the case. The fact that it isn't proves that Microsoft has failed with Vista and is now only trying to fix its faults.

As opposed to when Tiger came out and broke a whole load of applications so companies had to release new version. Or when Panther came out and the same happened.

Both Apple and MS have trouble whenever a new OS comes out. It's understandable with such a complex system. I know that when leopard comes out it will have a few glitches that will be fixed when the first point release comes out. That doesn't make it a bad OS or apple a bad company.

[JFreak]

As opposed to when Tiger came out and broke a whole load of applications so companies had to release new version. Or when Panther came out and the same happened.

You're talking about applications now. Sure, new application releases might be needed but that's just the way of life. Applications are supported on OS version X and might require hardware Y to function, and that's perfectly normal. If you run applications on an unsupported system, you can definetely expect them to fail at some point.

I know that when leopard comes out it will have a few glitches that will be fixed when the first point release comes out. That doesn't make it a bad OS or apple a bad company.

Now you're talking about operating systems. If operating system is so severely flawed to begin with that users actually prefer the old system, then one has to call it flawed. As I see it, Apple users have preferred Tiger over Panther over Jaguar over Puma and the only time there was a doubt was during transition from classic Mac OS to this new Unix-based OSX. It was a big paradigm shift so the doubt was justified.

But Windows users preferring XP (released in 2001) over Vista (released in 2007) is beyond belief. Six years of work and it ends with worse system? Unbelievable.

Let's face it; Windows people do not mostly have problems with Windows applications but with Windows itself. There's a big difference!

[clevin]

But Windows users preferring XP (released in 2001) over Vista (released in 2007) is beyond belief. Six years of work and it ends with worse system? Unbelievable.


its unbelievably naive to think Vista is severely flawed, and if history mean anything to you, you should remember windows users always complain the new system from M$, from win 98 until now.
I still remember my roommate was persistently refusing to load windows 98, windows 2000 users bashed windows xp, "experts" warned user to wait 6 month to try windows xp....

no offense, but vista being worse or better is not a judgment you or me can make.

[jdechko]

Can you purchase a new OEM PC with XP installed anymore? I'd be very surprised if you could.

Dell initially pulled XP, but it was reinstated (on some models) as an option because the public outcry. Several business/professional computers are also still available with XP

[gnasher729]

Sloppy programming? ROFL. Perhaps on Microsoft's part, because they never released an update. It's running under emulation; Rosetta performs spectacularly, easily three or four times faster than any emulator I've ever encountered.

Office 2008 for Mac will perform at full speed.

I work at a medical IT company; first thing we do when we get a new Vista machine is reimage it to XP. We're not going to talk about Vista for eighteen months.

Just as a comment: I have Microsoft Office on my MacBook (1.83 GHz, Core Duo not Core 2 Duo, 1 GB RAM) and Word and Excel run without any fan noise. Word uses about 3.4% CPU even when it's doing nothing; that is a bit annoying but has nothing to do with Rosetta. I wish they had gone a bit easier on fancy effects (transparency for tool windows seems rather pointless to me), but all in all a MacBook handles Office just fine. And there was an update some time last week that seems to make startup times a lot quicker.