PDA

View Full Version : Leopard is the New Vista


MacBytes
Nov 29, 2007, 08:46 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Leopard is the New Vista (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20071129214658)
Description:: We all have such a good time ragging on Vista that it's practically become second nature. We never, ever thought that we'd have the same reaction to a Mac OS--especially Leopard. By and large, though, <i>PC Mag</i> analyst Oliver Rist sees more similarities between Leopard and Microsoft's much-maligned OS than differences.

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

D3LM3L
Nov 29, 2007, 08:55 PM
So he thinks that Kernel Panics, hardware malfunctions, are a bug in the OS.

VoodooDaddy
Nov 29, 2007, 08:55 PM
Everyones experience is different. Ive had no problems at all with Leopard using the exact same apps. Ive been up 29 days so far, by far the longest uptime Ive ever had. Granted there are updates that need installed, but I dont want to install them and break my streak :D

xUKHCx
Nov 29, 2007, 08:58 PM
Everyones experience is different. Ive had no problems at all with Leopard using the exact same apps. Ive been up 29 days so far, by far the longest uptime Ive ever had. Granted there are updates that need installed, but I dont want to install them and break my streak :D

Some of those updates are security related (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=307004).

VoodooDaddy
Nov 29, 2007, 09:03 PM
Some of those updates are security related (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=307004).


ya, so?

zakatov
Nov 29, 2007, 09:04 PM
-1 (Garbage)

xUKHCx
Nov 29, 2007, 09:05 PM
ya, so?

Well it seems stupid to avoid the updates so you can brag about your uptime.

synth3tik
Nov 29, 2007, 09:16 PM
I can not ever read that gibberish. How did he get a job writing for a magazine? errr.

"so why don't you like Macs?"
"Because I don't like Macs"

It's a stupid circular logic.

Once the hardware devision at Apple demands that the software devision gives them 10.4 because no one wants 10.5, and only then will I listen to what this guy has to say.

Well it seems stupid to avoid the updates so you can brag about your uptime.

hehe

notnek
Nov 29, 2007, 09:21 PM
No problems here. Everything works great. My parents with their PC and Vista not so great.... And anyway, Vista sure looks a bit like Tiger. I mean.... Sidebar -> Dashboard....

VoodooDaddy
Nov 29, 2007, 09:32 PM
Well it seems stupid to avoid the updates so you can brag about your uptime.

Did you see me make a thread "hey everyone, look at my uptime!" There was no bragging, just stating a fact.

My post was to disprove the article that Leopard crashes all the time. The security update you felt I needed was to the internal firewall, I hardly think that its mega-uber-critical that I install that.

iTim314
Nov 29, 2007, 09:44 PM
I can not ever read that gibberish. How did he get a job writing for a magazine? errr.

"so why don't you like Macs?"
"Because I don't like Macs"

It's a stupid circular logic.

I hate windows with a Passion. I love Mac OS X with a greater passion.

But you can't ignore the list of complaints flooding in on this forum and every other forum about Leopard. I did, however, disagree with his rather weak GUI complaints, so I'll go against him on that.

But over all the article was not stupid circular logic, and was well written. He even said, twice I do believe, that he thought Tiger was superior to XP. Doesn't sound like he implied "I don't like Macs" at all.

I'll be waiting for more than just a 10.5.1 update. If still to many critical issues still exist as such a high occurrence rate, then I will wait for 10.6, or 11.

My two cents...

minik
Nov 29, 2007, 10:17 PM
Judging from you guys, I didn't spend too much time to read all 3 pages.

BTW, I run Leopard and Vista Business at work. Besides putting Leopard on my test Intel Mac (Mac Pro), it's running happily on my work DP 2Ghz G5. Sure, there are a couple misses, but Leopard is pretty solid from day 1. On the other hand, I managed to be quite happy with Vista on an aging Pentium 4 (541) 3.2Ghz HP workstation and I never booted back to XP Pro SP2.

Honestly, I shouldn't be using these 2 *current* operating systems on my production machines, since the rest of the computers here at work are still running Mac OS X 10.4.10 and WinXP Pro SP2. Working in the IT department, it's a good excuse to living on the edge. :p

Tim117
Nov 29, 2007, 10:30 PM
Judging from you guys, I didn't spend too much time to read all 3 pages.

BTW, I run Leopard and Vista Business at work. Besides putting Leopard on my test Intel Mac (Mac Pro), it's running happily on my work DP 2Ghz G5. Sure, there are a couple misses, but Leopard is pretty solid from day 1. On the other hand, I managed to be quite happy with Vista on an aging Pentium 4 (541) 3.2Ghz HP workstation and I never booted back to XP Pro SP2.

Honestly, I shouldn't be using these 2 *current* operating systems on my production machines, since the rest of the computers here at work are still running Mac OS X 10.4.10 and WinXP Pro SP2. Working in the IT department, it's a good excuse to living on the edge. :p

None more badass.

Kashchei
Nov 29, 2007, 10:36 PM
The author's bias is even more obvious in the video posted on the magazine's website. He repeats a lot of the same points, but makes it pretty clear he is Macphobic.

cohibadad
Nov 29, 2007, 11:02 PM
Did you see me make a thread "hey everyone, look at my uptime!" There was no bragging, just stating a fact.

My post was to disprove the article that Leopard crashes all the time. The security update you felt I needed was to the internal firewall, I hardly think that its mega-uber-critical that I install that.

no need to prove your fanhood with us :)

I've had so few problems with Leopard and I drive it like I stole it

VoodooDaddy
Nov 29, 2007, 11:05 PM
Ill say this, Ive never seen a windows computer with an uptime of 7 days, let alone 29.

stomer
Nov 30, 2007, 12:28 AM
I never had a core dump while running Tiger. A few days after having installed Leopard, I witnessed my first core dump so far but that's been the one and only core dump that I've ever had.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 30, 2007, 12:31 AM
So he thinks that Kernel Panics, hardware malfunctions, are a bug in the OS.

well people think that about windows all the time when most of the time the problems in it crashing is hardware related.

shadowfax
Nov 30, 2007, 12:52 AM
Ill say this, Ive never seen a windows computer with an uptime of 7 days, let alone 29.

I ran my Windows XP box for about a month straight in way back in 2002. It never did crash, just got pretty sluggish.

By the way, I don't think that KPs are always hardware related. In fact, they're certainly not. I KPed Leopard the second or third day I had it when I tried to run Parallels on my boot camp partition. It started booting it, and then it KPed, and when I rebooted my boot camp partition was hosed. Which was fine, it seemed to be helped by the rebuild I did. I didn't lose any files or anything... I just use it for Visual C# (for a class project) and also for... Counterstrike Source.

chasemac
Nov 30, 2007, 12:55 AM
I have had some slight problems with the Leopard upgrade but Vista is a problem. The alternative is to stay with Tiger until the bugs are killed. For the most part Leopard is awesome.

DoFoT9
Nov 30, 2007, 12:56 AM
Everyones experience is different. Ive had no problems at all with Leopard using the exact same apps. Ive been up 29 days so far, by far the longest uptime Ive ever had. Granted there are updates that need installed, but I dont want to install them and break my streak :D

yup totally agree... currently got 25days, going strong as.

um how do u get that uptime?? via terminal? i currently use istat to see mine...

as for leopard being the new vista.... gah i wish that fella would get a life. its basically just telling me that he knows nothing about computers nor OS's... tsktsk

Quillz
Nov 30, 2007, 01:07 AM
Ill say this, Ive never seen a windows computer with an uptime of 7 days, let alone 29.
You must not get out much, then, all the Windows computers at my university rarely, if ever, get shut down. They run XP at the moment, and one of the computers in the lab has been running for more than a year straight.

VoodooDaddy
Nov 30, 2007, 01:55 AM
You must not get out much, then, all the Windows computers at my university rarely, if ever, get shut down. They run XP at the moment, and one of the computers in the lab has been running for more than a year straight.

ya, I dont get out much to check on other ppl uptimes

:rolleyes:

btw, are you there 24/7 and know for a fact these computer have not been rebooted?


um how do u get that uptime?? via terminal? i currently use istat to see mine...



ya, just type uptime in terminal

Rodimus Prime
Nov 30, 2007, 02:10 AM
Ill say this, Ive never seen a windows computer with an uptime of 7 days, let alone 29.

wow like some said you need to get out more but I might like to point out chances are you do not use a windows computer so it makes it less likely that you will ever see one.
My desktop (windows XP) less than a month ago I want to say it crossed 45 days of straight uptime. I turned it off because I think was I going out of town the next day it been a long semester. It is not the first time I have had my desktop cross 30 days nor will it be the last. My parents computer quite off crosses 30 days.
Sorry I did not bother taking a screen shot of it because I really do not care to be bragging about it. Right now my desktop is just about crossing 4 days and I will be shutting it down over the weekend. Those shut downs both are related to the hardware. Last one was because DVD drive was having issues and I need to pull it to look at it and the one this weekend is because I some how caused my wireless card to stop working and I will not have the time to mess with it until this weekend. That and I need to put the optical drive back in.

Normally my XP box only restarts are update related.

Now if you choose not to believe my 45+ days I honestly do not care. I am not someone who thinks uptime is something to brag about. Now I can post a screen shot my old PC laptop having an uptime some where around 100+ years and yes it is a legit screen shot.

DoFoT9
Nov 30, 2007, 02:24 AM
LOL 100+ years...:rolleyes:

VoodooDaddy
Nov 30, 2007, 03:02 AM
Whos bragging? I mentioned the article was dumb because one of the guys gripes was his computer constantly crashed and I said Ive had 29 days uptime. Then you and the other poster were saying I was bragging. Fine, if you have 1000000 years uptime, sweet, good for you. I simply said, "Ive never seen a windows computer up 7 days, let alone 29." Why are you guys so offended by that?

And furthermore, again, why would I "get out to check ppls uptimes"?? Again, Ill say it slowly, I.....thats I...have....never....seen.....a....windows.....computer.....with.....7....days.....uptime. Did I say its not possible?

Passante
Nov 30, 2007, 05:07 AM
You must not get out much, then, all the Windows computers at my university rarely, if ever, get shut down. They run XP at the moment, and one of the computers in the lab has been running for more than a year straight.

Your lab computers don't get reimaged? You must be a student. Just try running a computer lab filled with PCs.

Sesshi
Nov 30, 2007, 05:11 AM
So he thinks that Kernel Panics, hardware malfunctions, are a bug in the OS.

As do Mac users pointing out the unreliability of Windows. My Windows computers currently have better uptime than Tiger if left to manual Windows Updates - which is most likely because I have two brain cells to rub together and some common sense. I use my main 'general purpose' computer at home - equipped with an overclocked refrigerated quad-core processor with two 8800GTX's - just like I use a Mac, when I'm not using it I sleep it and begin where I left off. Nary a problem since the beginning of the year.

TBi
Nov 30, 2007, 05:16 AM
As do Mac users pointing out the unreliability of Windows. My Windows computers currently have better uptime than Tiger if left to manual Windows Updates - which is most likely because I have two brain cells to rub together and some common sense. I use my main 'general purpose' computer - a 3.2Ghz overclocked, refrigerated quad-core processor with two 8800GTX's - just like I use a Mac, when I'm not using it I sleep it and begin where I left off. Nary a problem since the beginning of the year.

Hear hear. Too many people blame windows when it is the hardware to blame. Cheap hardware + buggy drivers makes for a buggy OS! Unfortunately no matter how many times you tell that to some people they still won't believe you!

Sesshi
Nov 30, 2007, 05:32 AM
Now, let's explore the other side. I get GSOD's on a Mac with no additional non-Apple hardware within a week of taking it out of the box. What gives? What about this "controlling the hardware so the software runs properly" malarkey? What about, in fact, the upgrade problems with Leopard when you only have a very limited selection of hardware that it runs on as opposed to Windows?

koobcamuk
Nov 30, 2007, 05:35 AM
Your lab computers don't get reimaged? You must be a student. Just try running a computer lab filled with PCs.

Our XP lab computers run for months on end without a restart and don't have a problem.

TBi
Nov 30, 2007, 06:16 AM
Now, let's explore the other side. I get GSOD's on a Mac with no additional non-Apple hardware within a week of taking it out of the box. What gives? What about this "controlling the hardware so the software runs properly" malarkey? What about, in fact, the upgrade problems with Leopard when you only have a very limited selection of hardware that it runs on as opposed to Windows?

GSOD's on a new computer indicate one thing, bad hardware. You just got unlucky. It doesn't have anything to do with "controlling" hardware.

A lot of the upgrade problems of Leopard can be attributed to incompatible software installed on the previous install, like APE.

Sesshi
Nov 30, 2007, 07:06 AM
GSOD's on a new computer indicate one thing, bad hardware.

That is the point I was making. It can be bad hardware outright, or hardware that doesn't work quite as it should but is built en masse anyway.

You just got unlucky. It doesn't have anything to do with "controlling" hardware.

I must be a VERY unlucky guy, and very specifically with Apples in that case since I buy lots of other stuff and have much fewer out-of-box hardware issues. Odd that.

freddiecable
Nov 30, 2007, 07:37 AM
honestly! I have no problem with stability etc. But - there are a great deal of things that has become worse - or deproved:

1. folder in dock...with no drill-down possibility (wake up Apple)!
2. stack...totally useless - if you have a bunch applications - which u do - it is a usability nightmare to find the item of interest.
3. spotlight search result has a different view today. It's a non-differentiated list - before you got search result nicely and tidy in categories...
4. how do I search my network today? Been trying to find :(
5. and an assortment of "small bugs" - like files dissapearing. I can see the file when attaching it in document - but it's not there when looking in the finder.
6. honestly - coverflow - is nice and cool in many ways. and also a bit usable. but...now we have 4 ways of navigating and this tends to confuse me. I would like to have coverflow "on-top" of list, column and icon view...

well...so - I tend to agree with the writer. Tiger was very usable and effective. and now apple has added somewhat bad stuff and deleted good stuff. still - it's a very good operative!

chatin
Nov 30, 2007, 07:50 AM
Guy has kernel panics that spawned this rant. Should do a reinstall. I bet he would need to reinstall Vista a perpetually circular # of times by now. :)

TBi
Nov 30, 2007, 08:03 AM
That is the point I was making. It can be bad hardware outright, or hardware that doesn't work quite as it should but is built en masse anyway.

That's true. A lot of PC makers use cheap hardware which makes the computer unstable. Apple's problem seems more like bad design rather than bad parts.


I must be a VERY unlucky guy, and very specifically with Apples in that case since I buy lots of other stuff and have much fewer out-of-box hardware issues. Odd that.

I didn't mean to aim my post directly at you. I should have chosen my words more carefully! It was more for the people who blame any OS for their stability problems rather than the fact that the underlying hardware is to blame, be it apple or pc.

contoursvt
Nov 30, 2007, 08:06 AM
Our Exchange server at work - 2003 server on a HP DL380. Uptime of close to 2 years. Check the idle time in hours...

http://powerthings.com/pics/uptime.jpg

Ill say this, Ive never seen a windows computer with an uptime of 7 days, let alone 29.

Orng
Nov 30, 2007, 08:09 AM
Now I can post a screen shot my old PC laptop having an uptime some where around 100+ years and yes it is a legit screen shot.

And you all thought Y2K went over without a hitch :)

diamond.g
Nov 30, 2007, 08:15 AM
What do you guys think of his Time Machine rant?

Kashchei
Nov 30, 2007, 08:28 AM
What do you guys think of his Time Machine rant?

I think everyone agrees that the program could use a tweak to allow it to select items to back up or ignore. But to claim that it is difficult to set up is ridiculous to the extreme. Having said that, the right-click option to back up immediately is not intuitive (although I don't know when I'd need this feature).

harmonica01
Nov 30, 2007, 08:34 AM
I never had a core dump while running Tiger. A few days after having installed Leopard, I witnessed my first core dump so far but that's been the one and only core dump that I've ever had.

yep, my family has collected at least one of every series mac since the 128k

I now have a 2.4 macbook pro with 4 gigs of ram blah blah...
Is the first unreliable mac i've ever had and the apple store i bought it from here in galleria says since they can't reciprocate the problems they dont have any proof to repair or replace anything...but atleast i got a new screen and keyboard out of them; problems with iDvd and iMovie crashing atleast once every 2 hours of continuous work, iDvd takes 6 attempts to complete a burn on dvd (crashes the other 5)...forum sites in safari have a lag when I type.. even now... if I put the computer to sleep it doesn't wake up even if plugged into wall, have to do log out first as i found there, so stupid...problems have just gotten worse since the upgrade to leopard

selling this computer in january after semester unfortunately, back to my powerbook g4 1.67

diamond.g
Nov 30, 2007, 08:52 AM
I think everyone agrees that the program could use a tweak to allow it to select items to back up or ignore. But to claim that it is difficult to set up is ridiculous to the extreme. Having said that, the right-click option to back up immediately is not intuitive (although I don't know when I'd need this feature).
I thought Time Machine only saved changes to a file not the whole file again. Is that true?

FJ218700
Nov 30, 2007, 08:56 AM
I thought Time Machine only saved changes to a file not the whole file again. Is that true?

yes, only files that have been altered are written, the rest are mirrored.

rwhiffen
Nov 30, 2007, 08:58 AM
(although I don't know when I'd need this feature).

I need it all the time. I don't carry my 3.5" ext HDD around with my laptop so when I come home I connect it up and do a backup. Unfortunately some times it doesn't fire off a backup right away, it waits for the next 'hourly' increment. I don't want to wait, so I 'back up now' on a regular basis. It is kind of silly for a company that has single button track pads to hide useful features under an alternate click.

Cheers,
Rich

rwhiffen
Nov 30, 2007, 09:09 AM
Guy has kernel panics that spawned this rant. Should do a reinstall. I bet he would need to reinstall Vista a perpetually circular # of times by now. :)

I'm in the multiple GSOD boat myself on two machines (none in 10.4 on same hardware). I've never had to do a re-install of any version of MacOS going back to 7.1 (although I did choose to just to 'clean house' once and a while), and I've done upgrades for the most part. This is the 3rd apple release that's made me regret upgrading. 8.5 was the first, 10.0 was the 2nd, and now this naughty kitty. It just lacks the polish that 10.2 through 10.4 had.

:p Re-install... Pheh! What are you, a windows tech support guy? :p (sarcasm...)

I think they rushed this out the door a little bit to make their promise and avoid slipping and getting egg on their face for all the jabs they've taken at Vista's slip dates. Plus all the resources they had to pull off of the OS to do the iPhone/iTouch stuff.

It'll get better, I'm confident but it's no fun powering on my laptop, trying to type in my username and getting a GSOD before I even hit the enter key (panic in the airport driver, happened a few times now).

Cheers,
Rich

aranhamo
Nov 30, 2007, 09:39 AM
Well, put me down for 0 crashes or freezes in Leopard. I've also upgraded 5 other Macs for family members and none of them have had any problems yet either. I never had a single crash or freeze in Tiger either. Or 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 or 10.3 for that matter. I did have a G5 iMac that over-heated and had to go in for repairs twice a month, which Apple eventually replaced with the Intel iMac I have now (which is flawless).

Time Machine is easy. My mom set hers up all by herself. It backs up the entire file every time so that you don't need a separate application to read the backup. That's what's called a "trade-off". You can browse your Leopard backup from any computer that understands HFS+, because they're not diffs or any other special backup files, they're just regular files. And you can restore an entire Leopard volume from the backup by booting from a Leopard install disk. You do not need a working Leopard installation to restore from a Time Machine backup.

I agree with him that stacks are stupid, but he loses a lot of credibility in my mind when he gets to Time Machine.

I have licenses to Retrospect and Super Duper. I also have Carbon Copy Cloner. I could never get any of those to work reliably on my Mac with Tiger (yes, I know lots of people have), so until Leopard came out the only backup software I could get to work all the time was Apple Backup. Now I use Time Machine, I don't use POS Entourage, and I'm very happy.

snickelfritz
Nov 30, 2007, 10:01 AM
Honestly, I think the entire article was fueled by frustration from the kernel panics, and simply spiraled into a full-blown rant about essentially nothing.

I think Oliver is being hasty with regard to Leopard stability; I have had zero crashes/kp in Leopard.
In fact, Leopard is the most stable operating system I've ever used.
His kernel panics are an issue with his particular machine; not Leopard.

The criticisms of the Leopard GUI sound more like lament than objectivity.
"I liked it better the old way; the new way doesn't make sense"
His attempts at platform neutrality (criticisms of Vista; praise of Tiger) are not fooling me; he's just a typical Windows advocate using Tiger to attack Leopard.

BTW, I tried to read Oliver's article with an open mind, but honestly, most of the stuff he wrote is just BS.

gslrider
Nov 30, 2007, 10:33 AM
Apart from installation issues (got the blue screen of death), which I found a work around, Leopard has been pretty good for me. And after the latest update, it seems to be better as well. I believe it'll be at least 2 or 3 more updates before they get the major kinks out, and have Leopard running reliably like Tiger.

eye.surgeon
Nov 30, 2007, 12:11 PM
Ill say this, Ive never seen a windows computer with an uptime of 7 days, let alone 29.

I routinely have 3-4 week uptimes on my Vista machine. Or longer. Sorry if that makes me less of a fanboy.

VoodooDaddy
Nov 30, 2007, 12:14 PM
I routinely have 3-4 week uptimes on my Vista machine. Or longer. Sorry if that makes me less of a fanboy.

Whats with you people? Just because of the comment I made about MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:

1) Im a fanboy
2) Im a loser (comment was edited)
3) I need to get out more

Im done with this thread. Flame on. If my personal experience with windows machines upsets anyone, I think they are the ones that need to get out more.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 30, 2007, 12:35 PM
And you all thought Y2K went over without a hitch :)

yeah. I have to look it up but I even want to say when I did the math on it I crossed a few 1000's. Apparently it is a known glitch in that Intel chipset that it ran on that it would cause it to do that.

Either way I find it to just be a funny screen shot to show any one who bashes windows up time. I know for a fact that a lot of windows XP computer well quite often go 30+ days with out a restart. Restarts being more controlled by system updates than anything else.

contoursvt
Nov 30, 2007, 12:55 PM
I think it was because the comment was a bit absurd. To say you've never seen a windows box go past 7 days in this day and age really does mean that you have not been exposed to many windows boxes. Its not a personal attack. Windows servers and workstations are routinely left on at work for weeks and months.

I mean if I said "Heck I've never seen a mac with a screen bigger than 9 inches let alone a color one thats bigger !" .. That might be my personal experience if I've only seen 2-3 mac classics in my life and never have been exposed to anything newer. It would sound a little silly though wouldnt it if I said that? This would be especially true if other brands of computers all have big color screens available. I'd just google "apple color screens" for 2 seconds before I shared that kind of info becuase I'd question my experience....

If you think about it, I'm sure you HAVE seen windows machines go beyond 7 days very easily if you've worked in a corporate environment because its very likely that they have windows servers that are up and running for months at a time or more.



Whats with you people? Just because of the comment I made about MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:

1) Im a fanboy
2) Im a loser (comment was edited)
3) I need to get out more

Im done with this thread. Flame on. If my personal experience with windows machines upsets anyone, I think they are the ones that need to get out more.

Sesshi
Nov 30, 2007, 01:20 PM
That's true. A lot of PC makers use cheap hardware which makes the computer unstable. Apple's problem seems more like bad design rather than bad parts.

Less and less true these days - the modularity of part blocks means that increasingly, it's the hardware engineering that's key, especially in space-constrained or critical-use machines. Apple's engineering strikes me as inadequate across their entire range right now, and buggy OS's can't be helping.

VoodooDaddy
Nov 30, 2007, 01:22 PM
I think it was because the comment was a bit absurd. To say you've never seen a windows box go past 7 days in this day and age really does mean that you have not been exposed to many windows boxes. Its not a personal attack. Windows servers and workstations are routinely left on at work for weeks and months.

I mean if I said "Heck I've never seen a mac with a screen bigger than 9 inches let alone a color one thats bigger !" .. That might be my personal experience if I've only seen 2-3 mac classics in my life and never have been exposed to anything newer. It would sound a little silly though wouldnt it if I said that? This would be especially true if other brands of computers all have big color screens available. I'd just google "apple color screens" for 2 seconds before I shared that kind of info becuase I'd question my experience....

If you think about it, I'm sure you HAVE seen windows machines go beyond 7 days very easily if you've worked in a corporate environment because its very likely that they have windows servers that are up and running for months at a time or more.

I guess if you consider mainframes and company servers, yes, obviously those systems are maintained and kept up for Lord knows how long. Im talking about your run-of-the-mill everyday home desktop. And yes, Ive been exposed to PLENTY of computers in my day, none in the corporate world. I have never seen a home pc ever go beyond 7 days without a crash that required a reboot. This is *my* fact.

And if you think Im some 12yr old kid that hasnt been around long enough, Im in my mid-30s. Ive built dozens of computer so I very familiar with hardware issues, software issues, or used to be. Im not your grandma that mistakenly clicked on the phishing email and installed some virus or some dont-know-any-better kid downloading stuff from kazaa either. I maintained my personal computers very meticulously, and even doing that, could never get them to stay up more than 4 or 5 days without a reboot.

Just to ease everyones minds about this issue, my mac with Leopard *gasp* just locked up and was totally unresponsive. Couldnt force quit, could access activity monitor, couldnt access terminal, nothing. Just totally frozen. Guess Ill install those updates now.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 30, 2007, 08:36 PM
I guess if you consider mainframes and company servers, yes, obviously those systems are maintained and kept up for Lord knows how long. Im talking about your run-of-the-mill everyday home desktop. And yes, Ive been exposed to PLENTY of computers in my day, none in the corporate world. I have never seen a home pc ever go beyond 7 days without a crash that required a reboot. This is *my* fact.

And if you think Im some 12yr old kid that hasnt been around long enough, Im in my mid-30s. Ive built dozens of computer so I very familiar with hardware issues, software issues, or used to be. Im not your grandma that mistakenly clicked on the phishing email and installed some virus or some dont-know-any-better kid downloading stuff from kazaa either. I maintained my personal computers very meticulously, and even doing that, could never get them to stay up more than 4 or 5 days without a reboot.

Just to ease everyones minds about this issue, my mac with Leopard *gasp* just locked up and was totally unresponsive. Couldnt force quit, could access activity monitor, couldnt access terminal, nothing. Just totally frozen. Guess Ill install those updates now.

still goes back to my point. I on a very regular bases see home windows computer hit 30+ days. Most of the time you do not notice it unless you know how to look for it and if the person tells you.

As I said my XP computer broke 45 days shortly before thanksgiving break.

chris200x9
Nov 30, 2007, 09:59 PM
Ill say this, Ive never seen a windows computer with an uptime of 7 days, let alone 29.


I never got this whole thing about PCs not having good uptime, I keep my current hp up now for days. I started shutting down more often, my old hp was stayed up for weeks.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 30, 2007, 11:56 PM
I never got this whole thing about PCs not having good uptime, I keep my current hp up now for days. I started shutting down more often, my old hp was stayed up for weeks.

simple like a lot of the complete crap said about windows PC it dates back to the windows 9.x days. Same with a lot of crap people talk about with the mac dates back to the pre OSX days.

puckhead193
Dec 1, 2007, 12:04 AM
the differences between leopard and vista is that by 10.5.3 most of the issues will be worked out, which will be in a few months.

Quillz
Dec 1, 2007, 12:32 AM
the differences between leopard and vista is that by 10.5.3 most of the issues will be worked out, which will be in a few months.
And by SP1, most of Vista's issues will be fixed, which will be in a few months.

funkypepper
Dec 1, 2007, 01:36 AM
apple is not the old apple we know.. especially after the intel switch.

apple do not care about the macs as it used to be. you know, itunes/ipod/iphone trio makes more money than os x and macs.

fanboys, retailers? can you hear me? keep up playing the three monkey.

real users? huh who cares about them. however steve already knows that apple do not need lawyers, apple already recruited(!) thousands of fanboys who acts like the apple's lawyers.

the statements above already defines my idea about the topic, i think.

SXR
Dec 1, 2007, 03:21 AM
And by SP1, most of Vista's issues will be fixed, which will be in a few months.

Are you sure? Will it fix the compatability problems?

I think every OS has some problems when released, but Vista had huge critics.
Some have problems with it and some not.

MacsAttack
Dec 1, 2007, 04:56 AM
simple like a lot of the complete crap said about windows PC it dates back to the windows 9.x days.

And has been reinforced by the "Wow" of Vista.

I sat and watched the development of the train wreck that became know as Vista as MicroSoft hacked away all the compelling features one by one. Faced with the fun prospect of having to completely replace my hardware to run Vista - and having to run vista to use future software - I concluded that I would be better off without MicroSoft on the desktop.

So I switched.

No regrets. Tiger ran fine (and with far less maintenance requirements). Three installs of Leopard (including on an 1.42Ghz G4 Mac Mini), and I have had precisely one kernel panic (my first ever), which was fixed by reinstalling Parallels after the upgrade (I've got one Windows program I run a couple of times a month on a VM built using the W2K license from the last Windows box I trashed because I could now get on without it).

In contrast - my company issued me with a laptop (a Dell) four months ago. Even though brand new - it cannot be upgraded to Vista (even if I wanted it - too much legacy stuff to support).

Like Tiger, Leopard's changes are subtle. Only when you crank up an old Tiger (or Panther) image go you suddenly find all those neat things you wind up depending on are missing!

Leopard the New Vista?

No.

Could Leopard have stood another 6 months of development? Yes. But that still would not catch all the issues, and I've never seen (or worked on) a project that went out the door with zero issues. Two major unresolved issues I've seen people come across where the fun and games with the extender thingy (which was known not to work with Leopard - and which sounds right dodgy to begin with), and people having problems with Adobe inDesign (which turned out to be because they were running pirates beta copies).

Like Tiger (and presumably Panther - that launch was before my time), Leopard will go through several stages now that it is in the wild.

1. 10.5.0 - Launch. No user in a serious environment will touch this with a barge pole.

2. 10.5.1 - First update (this is where we are). Fix for known issues that did not make the gold master, plus fixes for critical issues (such as the file move/copy one). Pros may evaluate this on selected machines.

3. 10.5.2 - Major patch (probably January to include drivers and stuff for whatever comes out at MacWorld). Fix issues that are identified in the wild now that a far bigger user base has identified issues. Leopard now safe for general use. Pros may hold off due to specific software issues or waiting for software updates (looking at you Adobe).

4. 10.5.3 - Stability (about six months in). Most of the issues have been addressed. YAMMV. There will still be some. Lots of the people who have been holding off will think about upgrading now.

However - a lot of people will have started with 10.5.0 (especially new hardware purchases) and will experience few if any problems with Leopard. But as usual you're going to find the forum here filled with people experiencing problems of one kind or other - because those are the people who post more.:p

Given the choice (where I run Windows) I will not be using Vista. Not even after SP1. When I get issued a new laptop a couple of years after Windows 7 ships (and I've killed off all the legacy stuff I have to support at last), I'll be running a new version of windows. But it will not be Vista. Vista has "skip" written all over it in the corporate workspace. Microsoft have "blown it" - and their increased profits are down to price gouging (European upgrades cost twice as much as in the US) and all those copies of XP they sold to people wanting to downgrade new machines from Vista.

Leopard - I've been evaluating at home. As all the software I need works on it and none of the known issues are problems for me, I have upgraded my primary machine as well, and my freelance work has enjoyed a productivity boost thanks to several of Leopards features. All the Mac users I know (who switched to Macs after seeing mine) have upgraded with no problems. Apple need to get 10.5.2 right or run some risk of Leopard being perceived of as "the New Vista".

Sleix
Dec 1, 2007, 03:09 PM
And by SP1, most of Vista's issues will be fixed, which will be in a few months.

Not really. I mean, I don't see them solving the 'speediness' issue that's been plaguing Vista since day -1. I mean, It's sad that XPSP3 run rings around it without stopping to catch its breath...I think it'll take another year and another service pack before it approaches the stability and speediness of its former bretheren.

schreck
Dec 1, 2007, 03:43 PM
I'm glad to say that I haven't had one single problem with Leopard. I had it installed early on Friday the 26th and have never had a single issue with freezing, kps, or anything of that sort. I love Tiger, and I really like Leopard.

GoodWatch
Dec 1, 2007, 03:44 PM
Iím not prepared to declare Vista DOA yet butÖ.. Before I bought my iMac Iíve been using Vista (corporate version) on my home PC. (Iím an IT clown at a Dutch multi national). It was well equipped for XP but ran out of steam in the graphics department in Vista. Iím an advocate of quality, brand name stuff but was left in the dark with both my printer and scanner. Limited Vista support because of crippled drivers. They just want you and me to buy new equipment.

Iím not a Windows basher, not even in a long run but the first incarnation of Vista is a bit, ehhhh, rough. If XP is a lean athlete, Vista is a sumo wrestler.

I donít understand the uptime figures because I've never left my PC running 24/7 at home. Waste of energy. Our Windows 2003 R2 servers however had been running for 112 days before we had to reboot them after a major patch round.

Our IBM iSeries on the other hand never stop. 4 hours planned unavailability per year. No unplanned downtime. The 4 hours are needed for house-keeping, the systems donít go down but are made unavailable to our users.

In the 10 years Iím responsible for our AS/400ís (now iSeries) they have never, ever halted. (But we replace them every 3 years).

SPUY767
Dec 1, 2007, 07:40 PM
Well it seems stupid to avoid the updates so you can brag about your uptime.

LOL. I have a Sawtooth G4, been running Tiger on it as a music server for well over two years. I don't think I've ever bothered to install updates for it. It once sat in sleep mode for three days while the power was out. That's a pretty amazing streak if you ask me.

SPUY767
Dec 1, 2007, 07:49 PM
Hear hear. Too many people blame windows when it is the hardware to blame. Cheap hardware + buggy drivers makes for a buggy OS! Unfortunately no matter how many times you tell that to some people they still won't believe you!

Too true, I've found that my MacPro runs Windows rather well, and reliably.

MikeTheC
Dec 1, 2007, 09:22 PM
I don't have Leopard, and the only Mac I have that normally is left on 24x7 is my old PowerMac G3. The last time I checked it's uptime, it was better than 100 days.

DoFoT9
Dec 1, 2007, 09:55 PM
I think everyone agrees that the program could use a tweak to allow it to select items to back up or ignore. But to claim that it is difficult to set up is ridiculous to the extreme. Having said that, the right-click option to back up immediately is not intuitive (although I don't know when I'd need this feature).

time machine CAN ignore certain things that u want it to.

yes, only files that have been altered are written, the rest are mirrored.

yup the files tht have already been backed up are linked to the original location where it was backed up on the ext HD.

MikeTheC
Dec 1, 2007, 10:37 PM
Iím not a Windows basher, not even in a long run but the first incarnation of Vista is a bit, ehhhh, rough. If XP is a lean athlete, Vista is a sumo wrestler.

Perhaps, then again I am a Windows basher and a hater of all-things-Microsoft. Of course, I've also been around in the computer world since the 1980s, and I've seen where we've come from and got to live through the times and the results of Microsoft's bad acts over the years. So, you'll pardon me for seeing what Microsoft really is -- as well as Windows -- and calling them on it.