PDA

View Full Version : Leopard will open the Mac OS X floodgates (and embarrass Mic...


MacBytes
Oct 30, 2007, 12:01 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Mac OS X
Link: Leopard will open the Mac OS X floodgates (and embarrass Microsoft) (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20071030130138)
Description:: none

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

bigandy
Oct 30, 2007, 12:24 PM
Microsoft Vista is nothing more than a public beta of an operating system that should have been held back until the major issues with the operating system were addressed

That? From C|Net? The sky must be falling! :eek:

igazza
Oct 30, 2007, 12:35 PM
vista never used it myself but by the sounds of it its a flop. i hope they fix there vista so apple have some competition.:D I think windows 7 wont be to far away.

mountainbiker80
Oct 30, 2007, 12:40 PM
I agree almost completely with this article. I, like many of you, am the head of IT for my company. If I was going to design my company's infrastructure all over again, I would make OSX Server my primary and deal with M$ Server 2003 on a secondary, terminal server level ("log in when you need a windows app" basis).

Set aside the functionality restrictions and issues that we all know exist in Server'03 and Vista (then again, would we all be so well employed and paid if we weren't required to keep their horribly programmed tools going?), and there is a HUGE cost difference in just licensing the OS software. I have to spend $450 on EACH machine we have here in the office due to (long story, not included) having to have Vista Ultimate Edition. So, I buy a computer, and then spend ANOTHER $450 just for the freaking operating system that doesn't run right! Compare that to Leopard's price tag, and the fact that you don't have to replace its "home" version when you buy a computer from a retailer. Now, factor in that it would cost me in the THOUSANDS of dollars for all the licenses for Server 2003 Active Directory, Exchange Server, and Terminal Server...all of which are included, no charge with OS X Server!

Mind you, however, OS X does have its limitations. When we all comment on the stability of OS X as compared to M$ operating systems, we need to remember that more often than not the instability in M$ comes from having to deal with an incalculable number of variables: endless manufacturers, with endless numbers of drivers, and endless numbers of programs. Each of these competes against each other and has an infinite number of side-effects (most commonly the crashing, hanging, etc. that we are so used to in XP/Vista, etc.). However, I don't know how that explains the horrific UAC system in Vista!!!

There are more than enough basic design flaws in Vista to justify scrapping it. But, my point was only simply that we would find that OS X ran with lesser efficiency and increased frustration if Mac machines were produced with similar levels of hardware and driver variance. But, we can thank Apple that they're not! So...Apple, thank you for your more stable product!

BenRoethig
Oct 30, 2007, 12:51 PM
I agree almost completely with this article. I, like many of you, am the head of IT for my company. If I was going to design my company's infrastructure all over again, I would make OSX Server my primary and deal with M$ Server 2003 on a secondary, terminal server level ("log in when you need a windows app" basis).

Set aside the functionality restrictions and issues that we all know exist in Server'03 and Vista (then again, would we all be so well employed and paid if we weren't required to keep their horribly programmed tools going?), and there is a HUGE cost difference in just licensing the OS software. I have to spend $450 on EACH machine we have here in the office due to (long story, not included) having to have Vista Ultimate Edition. So, I buy a computer, and then spend ANOTHER $450 just for the freaking operating system that doesn't run right! Compare that to Leopard's price tag, and the fact that you don't have to replace its "home" version when you buy a computer from a retailer. Now, factor in that it would cost me in the THOUSANDS of dollars for all the licenses for Server 2003 Active Directory, Exchange Server, and Terminal Server...all of which are included, no charge with OS X Server!

Mind you, however, OS X does have its limitations. When we all comment on the stability of OS X as compared to M$ operating systems, we need to remember that more often than not the instability in M$ comes from having to deal with an incalculable number of variables: endless manufacturers, with endless numbers of drivers, and endless numbers of programs. Each of these competes against each other and has an infinite number of side-effects (most commonly the crashing, hanging, etc. that we are so used to in XP/Vista, etc.). However, I don't know how that explains the horrific UAC system in Vista!!!

There are more than enough basic design flaws in Vista to justify scrapping it. But, my point was only simply that we would find that OS X ran with lesser efficiency and increased frustration if Mac machines were produced with similar levels of hardware and driver variance. But, we can thank Apple that they're not! So...Apple, thank you for your more stable product!

I don't know if if it's the amount of devices as much as how the OS is able to handle them. I think a lot of times Mac users discount how many different chipsets and how many other drivers Mac OS X actually has to support. Being much newer than windows, it is designed to be more modular and support them much better.

moniker
Oct 30, 2007, 01:52 PM
I agree almost completely with this article. I, like many of you, am the head of IT for my company. If I was going to design my company's infrastructure all over again, I would make OSX Server my primary and deal with M$ Server 2003 on a secondary, terminal server level ("log in when you need a windows app" basis).

I, too, am the head of IT for my company. We replaced the PC laptops with Macbook Pro's a little over a year ago, officially for security reasons (couldn't guarantee security with Windows on machines in the field connecting to the company network through VPN). I'd love to replace the rest of the network with Mac's but we won't be able to replace all of the PC's with Mac's and there are some heavy applications that doesn't lend themselves to run in a TS environment.

How well does OSX Server handle PC clients, especially when it comes to AD stuff?

wrldwzrd89
Oct 30, 2007, 02:13 PM
I, too, am the head of IT for my company. We replaced the PC laptops with Macbook Pro's a little over a year ago, officially for security reasons (couldn't guarantee security with Windows on machines in the field connecting to the company network through VPN). I'd love to replace the rest of the network with Mac's but we won't be able to replace all of the PC's with Mac's and there are some heavy applications that doesn't lend themselves to run in a TS environment.

How well does OSX Server handle PC clients, especially when it comes to AD stuff?
Though I don't know the exact details I do know that Leopard has a 100% Active Directory-compatible extended attribute-powered ACL-based permissions system that builds upon the basic UNIX permissions model. This alone makes integrating Macs with an Active Directory infrastructure much simpler.

whooleytoo
Oct 30, 2007, 08:26 PM
Terrible... imagine releasing an OS before it's ready*. Won't someone think of the children?

(* cough.. OSX 10.0 cough.. OSX 10.1... Hell, cough.. OSX 10.2 as well!)

killerrobot
Oct 30, 2007, 08:57 PM
I'm not sure whether this article is suppose to be funny or not after reading these forums for the last two days and seeing all the problems with Leopard - some that carry over even from Tiger. :confused:

I personally think that yes, OSX is more stable than XP or Vista, but I feel that Leopard and Vista both sold themselves short of what they could've and should've provided the end user.

My wife (pro Apple 100%) made a comment the other day asking me if she thought Apple put off Leopard so long to see what Vista would provide. It made me laugh for a second, but then I thought, "I don't know who īcopiedī who, but both the GUIs in Leopard ad Vista are completely loaded with eye candy to try to win over the user and an make them not look at its shortcomings."

vffikoncer
Nov 3, 2007, 08:03 AM
Thanks! I will check it out!!!