Apple Asking Feedback for Leopard 9A499

[acslater017]

iLife is not a part of Tiger. Applications similar to iLife are either free downloads for XP and or come with Windows Vista. They may not be the same quality as iLife, but they are available to the user on Windows with the OS or as a download...

...I don't want to be a party pooper either, but, OS X upgrades over the years cost just as much or even more than Vista today...

(Runs for cover).

You make a fair argument - purchasing every OS X upgrade would cost more money than purchasing every Windows upgrade. What makes a Mac "worth" the cost for me is the integration of the programs and the dependability of the system as a whole. Sure, a Windows user could download 5 programs that do photo, music, movies, etc. for free. An OS X user could do the same. But you can bet that those 5 programs won't play nice with each other.

My Dell that I bought in 2002 became sluggish and unusable by 2003. That's why I bought an iBook in 2004. Ease of maintenance and durability factor into cost, not just the number labeled on the box. And for me, the frequent upgrades are a good thing - I enjoy upgrading every 1-2 years to get the most cutting edge features. It's better than every 5 years with a couple of Service Packs thrown in.

It might be different for you - but that's why I, and many others, see OS X as less "costly" than Windows, even if in the end it costs more dollars.

 

[nja247]

It's probably those ADC members who either have been to WWDC or have a software Seed Key. It is possible for an online user to receive a seed key from a Select member.

When he said "online member" I'm 100% positive he meant the 'freebie' version of ADC that anyone can join w/o paying Apple any money. These accounts do not have access to the Leopard Early Seed Kit thus they don't need to provide feedback on it.

Nick

 

[Mr. Dee]

You make a fair argument - purchasing every OS X upgrade would cost more money than purchasing every Windows upgrade. What makes a Mac "worth" the cost for me is the integration of the programs and the dependability of the system as a whole. Sure, a Windows user could download 5 programs that do photo, music, movies, etc. for free. An OS X user could do the same. But you can bet that those 5 programs won't play nice with each other.

My Dell that I bought in 2002 became sluggish and unusable by 2003. That's why I bought an iBook in 2004. Ease of maintenance and durability factor into cost, not just the number labeled on the box. And for me, the frequent upgrades are a good thing - I enjoy upgrading every 1-2 years to get the most cutting edge features. It's better than every 5 years with a couple of Service Packs thrown in.

It might be different for you - but that's why I, and many others, see OS X as less "costly" than Windows, even if in the end it costs more dollars.

Dependability and OS X is very debatable. I purchase Macworld and I read numerous Mac forums, and the conclusion I have come to is that OS X is just about the same as Windows in terms of reliability and performance. But, I will give you the edge though that OS X is still faster than Windows Vista. I was running the hacked OS X x86 on my AMD Sempron and I came up with some interesting results:

OS X - Boot Time - 15 seconds from Apple logo to desktop
Windows Vista - Boot Time 46 seconds in addition 20 seconds to load desktop.

But I have experienced OS X getting just as groggy as Windows over time, it might handle it better, but its not out of the blue. Both have journaled file systems but, I have experienced the performance issues on both first hand. I also give OS X the edge on compatibility. For instance, I installed Panther on 3 old G3's the other day, I am talking about 1998 to 1999 era systems and I was just astounded by how well OS X performed on these systems. XP is less desirable of course, so I won't even go there when it comes machines from these era.

The thing is, I want be fair with my comparisons between both operating systems. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. As for integration, its just as easy on Windows as it is on OS X:

iPhoto - Windows PhotoGallery
iTunes - Windows Media Player
iMovie - Windows Movie Maker
iDVD - Windows Movie Maker / Windows DVD Maker
Garage Band - N/A

Windows Vista's multimedia applications work just as well with each other as the iLife suite. I can select 20 photos in PhotoGallery and click create dvd slide show and it automatically launches a DVD Maker wizard, I arrange, choose background music, choose appropriate aspect ratio, titles, themes, preview and burn.

I can further edit in Windows MovieMaker, save the project and add it to DVD Maker as a part of that project. So, the deep integration across the multi-media applications in Vista is well done and comparable to iLife. The themes though are not as top notch as iDVD but, in terms of functionality and ease of use, Mac OS X, iLife, Vista are on the same level.

I enjoy upgrading every 1-2 years to get the most cutting edge features. It's better than every 5 years with a couple of Service Packs thrown in.

Hmm, I don't know, Windows and Mac OS in my opinion are still just traffic cops that allows your software to communicate with your hardware. If you say you upgrade for cutting edge, then it took you 3 releases of OS X to start seeing some real results. The true innovation and attractiveness of OS X never began until around version 10.3. Again, its debatable. But, again, the cutting edge functionality you speak of is delivered in the OS and as free updates on the Windows side in addition to Service Packs.

 

[DarkArchon]

But, again, the cutting edge functionality you speak of is delivered in the OS and as free updates on the Windows side in addition to Service Packs.

When is the last time you applied a Service Pack?

People say all the time, that 6 years worth of OSX upgrades cost more than Vista, and that Microsoft gives away similar upgrades for free as "Service Packs", but look at the changes. Service packs for Windows are more like security fixes, and combined bugfixes. The only new feature in XP SP2 was the Windows firewall.

About the pricing, I wasn't aware that many people actually bought 10.0. It clearly wasn't ready to replace OS 9. I waited to 10.1 to switch. Waiting for 6 years to go from XP to Vista is closer to waiting 6 years for going from 10.4 to 10.5 than it is from 10.0 - > 10.5. Other than the UI, Vista isn't very different. Of course, Microsoft announced tons of neat features for Vista, but they all got dropped.

 

[twoodcc]

i think this is a good sign that Leopard is on schedule

 

[Peace]

i think this is a good sign that Leopard is on schedule

It is.More than people realize.

There is functionality in Leopard I know most people don't realize exists in an almost GM state.

Laugh all you want folks but until you go inside the guts of Leopard and know what you see I just take this discussion with a grain of salt.
Like I've said before there are portions of Leopard that don't seem up to snuff only because of outside influences.
E.G. contracts etc.

 

[Fairly]

What can they do if dev's tell them the new finder (or whatever other big feature) sucks? re-write it?

Good question. Of course Finder has sucked for almost ten years now and that hasn't stopped them.

 

[bananas]

I don't want to be a party pooper either, but, OS X upgrades over the years cost just as much or even more than Vista today:

If it was about price everybody would be running Linux and FreeBSD.
It's not like you have to buy every new release of OSX.

..and btw I AM running Linux, and no it's NOT about the cost..

 

[Mr. Dee]

When is the last time you applied a Service Pack?

People say all the time, that 6 years worth of OSX upgrades cost more than Vista, and that Microsoft gives away similar upgrades for free as "Service Packs", but look at the changes. Service packs for Windows are more like security fixes, and combined bugfixes. The only new feature in XP SP2 was the Windows firewall.

About the pricing, I wasn't aware that many people actually bought 10.0. It clearly wasn't ready to replace OS 9. I waited to 10.1 to switch. Waiting for 6 years to go from XP to Vista is closer to waiting 6 years for going from 10.4 to 10.5 than it is from 10.0 - > 10.5. Other than the UI, Vista isn't very different. Of course, Microsoft announced tons of neat features for Vista, but they all got dropped.

None of what you said makes any sense. In addition to that, you are contradicting the company. Mac OS 10.0 was released as a major upgrade from OS 9 that would be the default operating system on all Macs by July of 2001. Apple reneged on that decision because users were frustrated with both the 10.0 and 10.1 and did not make OS 10 the default OS until January 2003 (Jaguar) even then users were still frustrated and to maintain compatibility, OS 9 was still available through Classic mode. But it was a bad start and Apple realized this, thats why they hurridly provided 10.1 to persons who bought the 10.0 release for 19.99. You say you aren't aware that many people bought 10.0, I don't get that, it doesn't make any sense. The previous person I responded to said they like upgrading to new releases of the Mac OS. Also, a lot of persons bought the 10.0 preview in addition to 10.0 GM which many were disappointed by because they thought this was a chance to break free of Classic who's heritage goes all the way back to Mac OS 1.0. OS X may not have been ready at 10.0 to replace OS 9, but Windows XP was ready at RTM to replace Windows 9x, NT 4 and 2000 because it merged the ease of use of 9x with the stability of 2000 and of course the compatibility.

You seem to don't understand the difference between Service Packs and actual free ad-ons to Windows. Tweak UI, Themes, Internet Explorer, Windows Desktop Search (Tiger for OS X folks), Windows Media Player, Windows Live Messenger (new versions of iChat come at a cost). Most of these features required numerous upgrades of OS X while they have been free ad-ons for Windows.

Waiting for 6 years to go from XP to Vista is closer to waiting 6 years for going from 10.4 to 10.5 than it is from 10.0 - > 10.5.

That does not make any sense at all, XP is a fully modern, functional operating system at RTM and did not require numerous upgrade releases for users to say, I think OS X is stable enough to use for the long term or on a daily basis (10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3). You might have found it ready at 10.1, but thats just you, you are not a representation of the entire Mac OS X user base. If you look at the Leopard release and read the numerous comments and feedback Apple is getting about it, you will realize, its not that well received so far. Many are saying, the new global menu bar is following the fashion of Vista's semi-translucent Taskbar but with an inelegant approach. Sidebar in the Finder is similar to XP's task oriented TaskPane Explorers, the new Dock so far is not well received and looks like a rip off of SUNs Project Looking Glass. They are just adding uniformed Finder windows, the UI is considered not customizable. The top secret features so far have been considered more evolutionary than revolutionary and more of a gimmick than a necessity.

Of course, Microsoft announced tons of neat features for Vista, but they all got dropped.

List them. I sense frustration in that statement. The only thing Microsoft dropped from Vista (Longhorn) is WinFS and that was a under the hood feature targeted to developers. Windows Presentation and Communication foundations are in Vista (Avalon and Indigo) in addition to WinFX (.NET 3). So, I would really like to get a clearer picture of what "tons of neat features" are.

A lot of WinFS functionality is even in Vista, here is a quote from the "Developer's Guide to Interoperability and migration in "Longhorn" version 1.0"

"WinFS (Data) - WinFS simplifies the process of finding and storing important user data. In addition to streamlined APIs for accessing relational data, WinFS introduces a new centralized storage subsystem and API for storing and searching documents and contacts.

By defining common schema's and a centralized API for metadata access, "WinFS" enables different applications to access each other's data in a previously unrealizable way. Metadata, including categorization and linking across items, can be added to any object in the file system, allowing for more powerful search and organization functionality"

Sounds familiar:
Vista supports Meta data inside the Explorer (tagging), instant search from the Start menu and Explorer, organization with live previews, stacks and archived search for organization in addition to OLE which has been in Windows for years. So, I would recommend getting the facts straight first, I did for OS X, I am sure you can too for Windows.

 

[offwidafairies]

yeah, not sure how much meaningful feedback and changes they can make for something like this.

(by october)

arn

yeah i agree, but asking for feedback is a positive thing anyhoo...
maybe they want to start working on 10.6

 

[ZachPruckowski]

I don't want to be a party pooper either, but, OS X upgrades over the years cost just as much or even more than Vista today:

OS 10.0 - $129
OS 10.1 - $29
OS 10.2 - $129
OS 10.3 - $129
OS 10.4 - $129
OS 10.5 - $129

Total: $674

For the majority of Windows users, when they buy a new release of Windows through retail, its usually the upgrade version:

XP Home $99
XP Professional $199

Vista Home Premium $220
Vista Business $250

Still cheaper than OS X upgrades over the years.

Your logic assumes that all OS X users use computers from 1999 or 2000 and have purchased every update. This describes (at best) 5% of all Mac users. You would have to hack Leopard (and Tiger) to get it to run on a machine from 2000. And I dare you to run Vista on a 1.4 GHz Pentium 4 (fastest PC processor at the time).

Anyone who's main Mac is newer than 27 months old never even bought Tiger. Only Macs 4 years old (ok, 3 years, 10 months) or older would even need to buy Panther. We're talking 1 GHz G4 iMacs and first-gen PM G5s. Those are old computers.

Additionally, there's nothing that says that you have to buy every version of OS X. One could skip Tiger, and according to El Jobso at the WWDC 2007 keynote, between a third and a quarter of OS X users run Panther or earlier. Panther is still supported by Apple, and will be at least until 10.5 (Leopard) comes out.

So realistically, you're paying for only 1-2 upgrades per machine (if you pay for one at all), making the average cost roughly in line with the costs for Vista Home Premium or Ultimate upgrades.

Now consider this thought experiment. You and I buy identically priced computers around Christmas of 2003. I get Panther, you get XP. Those two OSes are approximately equal. Then in 2005, about 16 months later, I get Tiger, and have a superior OS for 1 year and 8 months, until you buy Vista Ultimate in Jan. of 2007. Then we have equal OSes for 9 months, and then I buy Leopard, and I have a superior OS for a period of 2 years (presumably, I'll ditch the computer with 10.6, as it'll then be 6 years old).

That breaks down to both of us paying $250 - $260. However, I have a superior OS for 2/3rds of the time.

 

[ZachPruckowski]

That does not make any sense at all, XP is a fully modern, functional operating system at RTM and did not require numerous upgrade releases for users to say, I think OS X is stable enough to use for the long term or on a daily basis (10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3). You might have found it ready at 10.1, but thats just you, you are not a representation of the entire Mac OS X user base.

You're both discussing the state of Mac vs. Windows in 2001-2003. This thread, as near as I can tell, is about "news". Let's focus on Panther, Tiger, and Leopard (each of which can hold its own vs. XP).

If you look at the Leopard release and read the numerous comments and feedback Apple is getting about it, you will realize, its not that well received so far. Many are saying, the new global menu bar is following the fashion of Vista's semi-translucent Taskbar but with an inelegant approach. Sidebar in the Finder is similar to XP's task oriented TaskPane Explorers, the new Dock so far is not well received and looks like a rip off of SUNs Project Looking Glass. They are just adding uniformed Finder windows, the UI is considered not customizable. The top secret features so far have been considered more evolutionary than revolutionary and more of a gimmick than a necessity.

I've heard many excellent things about Leopard, but I'll address your issues first. The Sidebar in the Finder is not new to Leopard. It's new to 10.3 (and thus is 4 years old). The only differences are the integration of Time Machine, the more distinct separation of shared and local volumes, and the addition of a few smart searches. Opinions about the new Dock have been rather mixed, with the primary complaint being that developers or designers who obsess over how their icons look have to retouch them to adjust for the new shadows. The translucent* menubar does suck, but can be turned off. You accuse Leopard of being a knock-off of Looking Glass, when Looking Glass is not a shipping product, only a theoretical project.

Now onto the strengths of Leopard you just brushed aside:

• Multi-threaded OpenGL 2
• Obj-C 2.0 w/ garbage collection
• Core Animation
• Time Machine
• Full 64 compatibility

Three of those are developer technologies. It might appear to you that they're not important, but they're a big deal if you plan on running applications (especially GUI applications). Multi-threaded OpenGL 2 is a rather large deal for an operating system that uses the GPU for GUI much more frequently than Vista. Obj-C 2 allows for quicker application development and is more powerful. It's a big deal if you're a Cocoa developer (I am not), and means that most of the apps most Mac users run will be more efficient. It also allows (well, the new xCode allows) for one of the easiest multi-threaded programming systems available in an object-oriented language. Core Animation allows for amazing and useful animation effects with only a few lines of code. Aside from the cool demos, this allows for superior applications, and will likely be reflected in both 1st and 3rd party apps by mid-2008.

Then there's Time Machine, which people either think is an amazing revolution in the desktop use paradigm or completely useless. I'm in the first camp, and I think that by this time in 2008, most people will be there with me.

Finally, there's 64-bitness. Unlike Vista, which requires a separate version for 64-bit installations and separate drivers, Leopard is 64-bit native. Most Cocoa applications and all non-GUI applications are a recompile away from full 64-bit capability, which is pretty darn nice for a lot of applications.

In short, Leopard would be worth buying only for the developer features (because they would result in superior Leopard-only apps).

* = translucent means "semi-transparent". Something can not be semi-translucent unless it is completely three dimensional, and is translucent in one dimension while opaque or transparent in another. As everything on Macs and PCs is only faux-3D (we don't have holo-screens), nothing in a UI is "semi-translucent". Not trolling, just trying to explain.

 

[Mr. Dee]

Your logic assumes that all OS X users use computers from 1999 or 2000 and have purchased every update. This describes (at best) 5% of all Mac users. You would have to hack Leopard (and Tiger) to get it to run on a machine from 2000. And I dare you to run Vista on a 1.4 GHz Pentium 4 (fastest PC processor at the time).

Anyone who's main Mac is newer than 27 months old never even bought Tiger. Only Macs 4 years old (ok, 3 years, 10 months) or older would even need to buy Panther. We're talking 1 GHz G4 iMacs and first-gen PM G5s. Those are old computers.

Additionally, there's nothing that says that you have to buy every version of OS X. One could skip Tiger, and according to El Jobso at the WWDC 2007 keynote, between a third and a quarter of OS X users run Panther or earlier. Panther is still supported by Apple, and will be at least until 10.5 (Leopard) comes out.

So realistically, you're paying for only 1-2 upgrades per machine (if you pay for one at all), making the average cost roughly in line with the costs for Vista Home Premium or Ultimate upgrades.

Now consider this thought experiment. You and I buy identically priced computers around Christmas of 2003. I get Panther, you get XP. Those two OSes are approximately equal. Then in 2005, about 16 months later, I get Tiger, and have a superior OS for 1 year and 8 months, until you buy Vista Ultimate in Jan. of 2007. Then we have equal OSes for 9 months, and then I buy Leopard, and I have a superior OS for a period of 2 years (presumably, I'll ditch the computer with 10.6, as it'll then be 6 years old).

That breaks down to both of us paying $250 - $260. However, I have a superior OS for 2/3rds of the time.

I am not saying that, but some Mac OS X users are using machines from 1999 and 2000, you and I don't know how many there are. But many have toted that as probably a strength of the platform itself, long lasting hardware. But, the point is even if you and I bought equal systems in 2003 (Mac/PC), XP would still have the edge, because you bought the Tiger upgrade to get features that XP either have built in or got as free downloads.

OS X did not get Fast User Switching until Panther (10.3), Instant Search until Tiger (10.4). XP users got Instant search technology as a free download with the MSN Desktop Search tool in 2005. You can try and claim the edge with Dashboard, but I could rebuttal with Konfabulator which was available for both Mac OS X and Windows prior to the release of Tiger.

Anyone who's main Mac is newer than 27 months old never even bought Tiger. Only Macs 4 years old (ok, 3 years, 10 months) or older would even need to buy Panther. We're talking 1 GHz G4 iMacs and first-gen PM G5s. Those are old computers.

You must be rich to make such a statement. Another contradiction, because even Apple disagrees with that statement. Why would they then make the minimum system requirement for Leopard be a PowerPC G4 800 MHz with 512 MBs of RAM? Ha, gotcha didn't I? The first gen PPC G5 tower (June 2003) ran at 1.6 to 2 GHz, you really, really are trying to tell me those Macs are too old to upgrade to either Panther (October 2003) or Tiger? Come, Apple released a 2.1 GHz G5 iMac in October of 2005, 4 months before the Intel iMac? When Tiger was released in April of 2005, Apples fastest G4 and G5 systems were 1.5 GHz and 2.5 Ghz respectively. The first Gen iMac with the PPC G5 released in fall of '04 were running at 1.6 to 1.8 Ghz, 8 months before Tigers release in April 2005. And YOU are seriously trying to tell me those machines are too old to upgrade to Tiger. Don't talk garbage man, makes you look really, really stupid. Tiger even runs on G3 systems! Again, there is a reason why Apple continues to sell PPC Tiger.

And I dare you to run Vista on a 1.4 GHz Pentium 4 (fastest PC processor at the time).

I have dared you, Vista runs on a minimum of 800 Mhz with with 512 MBs of RAM (1GB recommended), reading it right here on my Vista Ultimate product box, so whats your point? At least I don't have to hack my system from 2000 to install the latest OS. XPOSFACTO anyone? My point is, to call OS X a worthy upgrade, that designation never came until Panthers release in October 2003. XP claimed that from October of 2001.

 

[DarkArchon]

I got a white iBook in July '01. It had 10.0, but I'm pretty sure it first booted up in 9. I don't recall anybody actually switching to 10.0 or purchasing a license, but it came packaged for free on my computer, so I didn't complain. I went to Comp USA and got a 10.1 upgrade CD for free.

You seem to don't understand the difference between Service Packs and actual free ad-ons to Windows. Tweak UI, Themes, Internet Explorer, Windows Desktop Search (Tiger for OS X folks), Windows Media Player, Windows Live Messenger (new versions of iChat come at a cost). Most of these features required numerous upgrades of OS X while they have been free ad-ons for Windows.

You're right, Apple would NEVER release new versions of iTunes, or Quicktime unless you bought the new OS. Windows Live Messanger is complete garbage, and themes just change the colors a little, and they add no functionality. Windows Desktop Search is the only significant addition.

That does not make any sense at all, XP is a fully modern, functional operating system at RTM and did not require numerous upgrade releases for users to say, I think OS X is stable enough to use for the long term or on a daily basis (10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3). You might have found it ready at 10.1

You kidding?!?!? XP was received terribly. It wasn't really stable until SP2. People had the same attitude then as they do now. They felt Win2K was the first reasonable OS Microsoft released, and were VERY adamant about not switching to XP.

Since 10.2, the new versions of OS X haven't been about stability. Here are the reasons why I've upgraded since 10.2. 10.3 added Core Audio(which is awesome compared to kmixer), expose(alone made the upgrade worth it), FileVault, and fast user swapping. 10.4 added Spotlight, Dashboard, and Automator. I'm very excited about Spaces, Quick Look, Time Machine, the new scheduler, and fully 64 bit applications framework(about damn time Apple). The only thing that could get me excited about non-beta boot camp is if they included a more robust partition manager. I don't program much, so I really don't know a lot about Apple's frameworks like Cocoa, but from what I've heard, it is a much more pleasant experience to write programs for Macs.

List them. I sense frustration in that statement. The only thing Microsoft dropped from Vista (Longhorn) is WinFS and that was a under the hood feature targeted to developers. Windows Presentation and Communication foundations are in Vista (Avalon and Indigo) in addition to WinFX (.NET 3). So, I would really like to get a clearer picture of what "tons of neat features" are.

Off the top of my head, the promised PC->PC syncing, and a scripting shell. I wasn't really paying attention to all the Microsoft promised features, and I remembered those. The lack of WinFS isn't exactly small either.


I use Vista Business X64, and for the record, I do like it a lot better than XP, but it has some pretty major problems. It pops up with that "security" thing even when you go to change minor preference things that are in no way related to security. It gets to the point where I just ignore it because hitting accept is the automatic response. You could claim the admin password requirement in OS X is the same, but it is used so rarely that it actually grabs attention instead of becoming an automatic motion. I have 3 GB RAM, and Windows is still somewhat sluggish with multitasking. I can be running tons of stuff in OS X and experience no slowdowns when I launch another application. The window management is still awful. The "flip" feature is a joke. Microsoft's own software isn't internally consistent. When I went to the Microsoft site to get updates using the 64 bit version of IE, it failed to install the ActiveX plugin that made the WGA calls, so I had to download the program that created the WGA code and enter it automatically. Updates need to be installed serially. There aren't "combo updates." It feels like I install updates, restart, install more updates, restart again, etc. Program crashes are still messier than in OS X. Finally, about half the times when I try to shut down, Vista freezes. I thought this might be a bad install, but I talked to a friend who has a "built for Vista" laptop running 32 bit Vista Business, and he has the same problem.

 

[Mr. Dee]

You're both discussing the state of Mac vs. Windows in 2001-2003. This thread, as near as I can tell, is about "news". Let's focus on Panther, Tiger, and Leopard (each of which can hold its own vs. XP).



I've heard many excellent things about Leopard, but I'll address your issues first. The Sidebar in the Finder is not new to Leopard. It's new to 10.3 (and thus is 4 years old). The only differences are the integration of Time Machine, the more distinct separation of shared and local volumes, and the addition of a few smart searches. Opinions about the new Dock have been rather mixed, with the primary complaint being that developers or designers who obsess over how their icons look have to retouch them to adjust for the new shadows. The translucent* menubar does suck, but can be turned off. You accuse Leopard of being a knock-off of Looking Glass, when Looking Glass is not a shipping product, only a theoretical project.

Now onto the strengths of Leopard you just brushed aside:

• Multi-threaded OpenGL 2
• Obj-C 2.0 w/ garbage collection
• Core Animation
• Time Machine
• Full 64 compatibility

Three of those are developer technologies. It might appear to you that they're not important, but they're a big deal if you plan on running applications (especially GUI applications). Multi-threaded OpenGL 2 is a rather large deal for an operating system that uses the GPU for GUI much more frequently than Vista. Obj-C 2 allows for quicker application development and is more powerful. It's a big deal if you're a Cocoa developer (I am not), and means that most of the apps most Mac users run will be more efficient. It also allows (well, the new xCode allows) for one of the easiest multi-threaded programming systems available in an object-oriented language. Core Animation allows for amazing and useful animation effects with only a few lines of code. Aside from the cool demos, this allows for superior applications, and will likely be reflected in both 1st and 3rd party apps by mid-2008.

Then there's Time Machine, which people either think is an amazing revolution in the desktop use paradigm or completely useless. I'm in the first camp, and I think that by this time in 2008, most people will be there with me.

Finally, there's 64-bitness. Unlike Vista, which requires a separate version for 64-bit installations and separate drivers, Leopard is 64-bit native. Most Cocoa applications and all non-GUI applications are a recompile away from full 64-bit capability, which is pretty darn nice for a lot of applications.

In short, Leopard would be worth buying only for the developer features (because they would result in superior Leopard-only apps).

* = translucent means "semi-transparent". Something can not be semi-translucent unless it is completely three dimensional, and is translucent in one dimension while opaque or transparent in another. As everything on Macs and PCs is only faux-3D (we don't have holo-screens), nothing in a UI is "semi-translucent". Not trolling, just trying to explain.

Ok, Leopard right now has the edge on distribution method and I admit, it kicks Vistas you know what with the 32/64 bit device driver support. Thanks for the correction on the translucent issue.

When it comes to developer tools, its more under the hood and Windows developer tools are powerful in their own right and thats proven by the large developer base.

• Multi-threaded OpenGL 2
• Obj-C 2.0 w/ garbage collection
• Core Animation
• Time Machine
• Full 64 compatibility

I could answer all the above with Visual Studio 2005 and 2008 (beta 2) in addition to the various API's and technologies in Vista such as .NET 3, Windows Communication and Presentation Foundations. But my concerns were focused on the double standard when it comes TCO and double standard.

 

[MrCrowbar]

Tiger works on a 1999 Powermac...

Anyway Leopard doesn't bring much new bling like Vista did after XP. Leopard brings tons of good stuff for the developers like xCode2.0, garbage collection, core animation etc. Consumers will see Time Machine and the better windows network integration at first. Then there will be new applications that use the new developer technologies and that's where Leopard will really shine.

Just be patient and check it out when the time has come. I bet there are some gimmicks that are absent in the developer releases of Leopard. I hope they'll get all those icons to 512x512 by the time it ships, that's like the most important thing

 

[Mr. Dee]

I got a white iBook in July '01. It had 10.0, but I'm pretty sure it first booted up in 9. I don't recall anybody actually switching to 10.0 or purchasing a license, but it came packaged for free on my computer, so I didn't complain. I went to Comp USA and got a 10.1 upgrade CD for free.

And your point? XP at RTM comes pre-bundled on systems in September of 2001. Thats what you call OEM, same case with your OS 10.0. I am remember watching ZDNet TV in 2001 (The Screen Savers) and I remember Leo Laporte talking about getting the 10.1 CD for 19.99 upgrade, some might have gotten for free. There was also an issue for Apple that the 10.1 upgrade CD could be turned into a full version by altering a file.

You're right, Apple would NEVER release new versions of iTunes, or Quicktime unless you bought the new OS. Windows Live Messanger is complete garbage, and themes just change the colors a little, and they add no functionality. Windows Desktop Search is the only significant addition.

They still bundled iTunes with iLife when the first version was released in 2003, can you run iTunes 7 on OS 10.0, 10.1, 10.2? NO, but I can run Windows Media Player 11 on XP just fine. WLM maybe garbage in your opinion, but its still free to users of Windows 2000, XP and Vista. You actually have to wait on a new release of OS X to get a new version of iChat. You contradict yourself again with the themes statement. I would assume when Apple moved from pin stripe that came with OS X versions 10.0, 10.1 to a smooth Aqua theme in 10.3 and now to a smooth metallic theme in Leopard, that does not count as functionality? Oh, so I guess you would prefer to stick with OS 8.6 and 9.2 look and feel then, it wouldn't bother you? Get your facts straight, its very important.

You kidding?!?!? XP was received terribly. It wasn't really stable until SP2. People had the same attitude then as they do now. They felt Win2K was the first reasonable OS Microsoft released, and were VERY adamant about not switching to XP.

Back that up with a quote. Of course everyone is not gonna be pleased with a new release, the Windows userbase is so large, it is expected to have a few nay sayers. OS X had 5 million users by 2003, XP trippled that 20 times over by 2003, obviously a majority of users were pleased with it to have such a huge uptake. XP was stable at RTM, XP SP2 improved the built in Firewall by turning it on by default, included post updates since SP1, IE 6 with Pop-up blocker, better wireless and bluetooth support. It simply improved. Hey, at least I didn't have to pay for it.

Since 10.2, the new versions of OS X haven't been about stability. Here are the reasons why I've upgraded since 10.2. 10.3 added Core Audio(which is awesome compared to kmixer), expose(alone made the upgrade worth it), FileVault, and fast user swapping. 10.4 added Spotlight, Dashboard, and Automator. I'm very excited about Spaces, Quick Look, Time Machine, the new scheduler, and fully 64 bit applications framework(about damn time Apple). The only thing that could get me excited about non-beta boot camp is if they included a more robust partition manager. I don't program much, so I really don't know a lot about Apple's frameworks like Cocoa, but from what I've heard, it is a much more pleasant experience to write programs for Macs.

At least I didn't need to buy a new version of OS X to gain functionality, thats delivered through Service Packs. All the other functionality mentioned are similar to in some ways to features already in XP and Vista. 64-bit is not gonna benefit every one btw, so toting it as a holy grail feature is really not a big deal for the majority of users on either on the OS X or Windows platforms.

Off the top of my head, the promised PC->PC syncing, and a scripting shell. I wasn't really paying attention to all the Microsoft promised features, and I remembered those. The lack of WinFS isn't exactly small either.

You said tons of features, and I explained that functionality in WinFS is already in Vista, meta data, search and organization. So whats your point again? PC to PC syncing by my standards is not a ton of missing features. Here is the scripting Shell you speak of, its called Windows Powershell:
Free btw
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/default.mspx

I use Vista Business X64, and for the record, I do like it a lot better than XP, but it has some pretty major problems. It pops up with that "security" thing even when you go to change minor preference things that are in no way related to security. It gets to the point where I just ignore it because hitting accept is the automatic response. You could claim the admin password requirement in OS X is the same, but it is used so rarely that it actually grabs attention instead of becoming an automatic motion. I have 3 GB RAM, and Windows is still somewhat sluggish with multitasking. I can be running tons of stuff in OS X and experience no slowdowns when I launch another application. The window management is still awful. The "flip" feature is a joke. Microsoft's own software isn't internally consistent. When I went to the Microsoft site to get updates using the 64 bit version of IE, it failed to install the ActiveX plugin that made the WGA calls, so I had to download the program that created the WGA code and enter it automatically. Updates need to be installed serially. There aren't "combo updates." It feels like I install updates, restart, install more updates, restart again, etc. Program crashes are still messier than in OS X. Finally, about half the times when I try to shut down, Vista freezes. I thought this might be a bad install, but I talked to a friend who has a "built for Vista" laptop running 32 bit Vista Business, and he has the same problem.

Why are using IE 64-Bit in the first place when IE 32 bit is the default browser in Vista x64? You just did that to prove a useless point. Were you using the 64 bit technologies in Tiger through the command line? No, so why use 64 bit IE when you know 100 % that most web sites don't have 64 bit native ActiveX controls, even if its a Microsoft based website. If you are using IE 64 Bit on Vista, why aren't using or complaining about 64-bit Windows Mail, Media Player and other applications that come as 64 bit in Vista too. Combo updates on XP are known as Service Packs, on OS X Tiger in particular, you have had 11 of them so far. If you downloaded all post updates since XP SP1 for instance, then you would automatically be upgraded to XP SP2 without having to download the entire update itself. Your shutdown issue is likely hardware based and it could be coincidental with your friends machines. But since you are pointing out flaws I guess you don't mind me pointing out the audio popping issues that users have experienced with the 10.4.10 update. Come on, its called a maintenance update, it should be fixing problems in the OS not adding them. Also, the 10.4.10 update required some users on PowerBooks and MacBook Pros to restart their systems. When you say application crashes are messier, please explain. At least Windows Problems and Solutions offers suggestions. When you get a kernel panic on OS X, you only get two options, cold reset or reinstall to fix the issue. In fact, you have repair permissions everytime you do a maintenance update on OS X just to be safe. So if you want point flaws in an operating system, make sure you do it across the board my friend.

 

[DarkArchon]

And your point? XP at RTM comes pre-bundled on systems in September of 2001.

But 2000 didn't. How many years did Apple throw both OS 9 AND 10 on their computers?

You contradict yourself again with the themes statement. I would assume when Apple moved from pin stripe that came with OS X versions 10.0, 10.1 to a smooth Aqua theme in 10.3 and now to a smooth metallic theme in Leopard, that does not count as functionality?

No, I don't consider simply changing color, or pattern functionality. How is that a contradiction if I didn't count that as a new feature for OS X either?

Oh, so I guess you would prefer to stick with OS 8.6 and 9.2 look and feel then, it wouldn't bother you? Get your facts straight, its very important.

That is a change in interface and layout, not just a change in color. If you can't understand something that simple...

Back that up with a quote. Of course everyone is not gonna be pleased with a new release, the Windows userbase is so large, it is expected to have a few nay sayers. OS X had 5 million users by 2003, XP trippled that 20 times over by 2003, obviously a majority of users were pleased with it to have such a huge uptake.

It's called OEM licensing... ever heard of it?

XP was stable at RTM, XP SP2 improved the built in Firewall by turning it on by default, included post updates since SP1, IE 6 with Pop-up blocker, better wireless and bluetooth support. It simply improved. Hey, at least I didn't have to pay for it.

And OS X's wireless support and networking has always been, and still is better. What's your point?

At least I didn't need to buy a new version of OS X to gain functionality, thats delivered through Service Packs.

As you said to me,

You seem to don't understand the difference between Service Packs and actual free ad-ons to Windows.

All the other functionality mentioned are similar to in some ways to features already in XP and Vista. 64-bit is not gonna benefit every one btw, so toting it as a holy grail feature is really not a big deal for the majority of users on either on the OS X or Windows platforms.

Since when did I tout being 64-bit as a holy grail? It was one feature out of many?

Why are using IE 64-Bit in the first place when IE 32 bit is the default browser in Vista x64? You just did that to prove a useless point. Were you using the 64 bit technologies in Tiger through the command line? No, so why use 64 bit IE when you know 100 % that most web sites don't have 64 bit native ActiveX controls, even if its a Microsoft based website.

It isn't just a Microsoft based website, it is THE Microsoft website. You'd think they would support their own CURRENT software...

If you are using IE 64 Bit on Vista, why aren't using or complaining about 64-bit Windows Mail, Media Player and other applications that come as 64 bit in Vista too.

I haven't used them yet. I just use webmail for mail, VLC is a million times better than WMP, or Quicktime for simple video playback, and I just happened to decide to upgrade software before installing Firefox, which I still haven't tried on the Microsoft site.

Combo updates on XP are known as Service Packs.

So if I want to update my Windows OS before they release a Service Pack with everything in it, and I haven't used Windows in a while? I guess I need to update the OS ONE UPDATE AT A TIME.

on OS X Tiger in particular, you have had 11 of them so far.

And on a fresh Tiger reinstall, I was able to go right up from 10.4 to 10.4.10 without any issues.

But since you are pointing out flaws I guess you don't mind me pointing out the audio popping issues that users have experienced with the 10.4.10 update.

If you want to talk about audio problems, I have one word for you... KMIXER. You can't even get decent digital out in Windows without figuring out how to bypass how Windows handles audio, and that ISN'T a bug.

When you get a kernel panic on OS X, you only get two options, cold reset or reinstall to fix the issue.

The only time I've had kernel panics was when I was messing with funky kernel extensions. Removing the EXT2 kernel extension installed cleared up the problem. But speaking of issues like that, what do you do whey your machine blue screens?

In fact, you have repair permissions everytime you do a maintenance update on OS X just to be safe. So if you want point flaws in an operating system, make sure you do it across the board my friend.

How often do you defrag your hard drive? At least repairing permissions is fast.

Edit: A quick google search shows that I'm not the only one that has problems on shutting down Vista.

 

[Peace]

This thread is going downhill fast.

 

[pomus]

Unfair analysis and comparison. First of all, iLife '08 comes pre-bundled with new Macs since (August 7, 2007) or a $79 dollar retail price. You are using an iMac G3 which probably came out in 1999, which probably came with OS 8.6 or OS 9.1 (iLife '08 requires a G4 processor). In this case you had to upgrade at a cost. iLife is not a part of Tiger. Applications similar to iLife are either free downloads for XP and or come with Windows Vista. They may not be the same quality as iLife, but they are available to the user on Windows with the OS or as a download.

I don't have a problem with comparisons, but make them true and fair. Right now, its Vista vs. Tiger, simply because those are the latest from both Company's. Similar to when Apple was promoting Tiger vs. XP because those were the latest on the market when making comparisons. I have read a lot of hypocrisy in this thread. When Microsoft delayed Vista, you made fun of Microsoft from dawn till dust. When its the other way around, its sacred and right. Apple is not immune to software development issues. The only "only" feature Microsoft dropped from Vista was WinFS, everything else that was promised, came with the RTM. Vista's issues are not related to buggy software either, its device driver support thats the problem and in most cases its the 64-bit version, not the 32-bit version which comes with all OEM machines and in the retail versions of Vista. The only thing I see missing in Vista, is an automation tool, but, its likely with so much third party support for the platform, you should be able to find one anyway.

I don't want to be a party pooper either, but, OS X upgrades over the years cost just as much or even more than Vista today:

OS 10.0 - $129
OS 10.1 - $29
OS 10.2 - $129
OS 10.3 - $129
OS 10.4 - $129
OS 10.5 - $129

Total: $674

For the majority of Windows users, when they buy a new release of Windows through retail, its usually the upgrade version:

XP Home $99
XP Professional $199

Vista Home Premium $220
Vista Business $250

Still cheaper than OS X upgrades over the years.
Other factors include that XP was ready at RTM, OS 10.0 was not ready at GM and both were released in 2001. Consumers see XP as good enough even today that Microsoft had to create more activation keys for it. It took OS X until Panther to reach good enough state. Also, Academic upgrade pricing does not count, since thats only a segement of the market. If do want to count it in, I will do the same with Vista which usually cost $40 when purchased through the University.

(Runs for cover).

I totally disagree. To properly upgrade vista, I would have to spend $600 bucks. I went to cpmpusa to try out Vista only to be dissapointed by its sluggish speed on a new system because vista is a power hog. I am currently running running xp only to have to reboot my computer every other month. To make the long story short. Vista sucks and I would rather wait for Leopard to buy a new Mac than to upgrade to vista.

Windoze doesn't work for me, and I can't wait for leopard.


Yay apple won over another windoze user

Viva la revolution!

 

[Mr. Dee]

But 2000 didn't. How many years did Apple throw both OS 9 AND 10 on their computers?

Your knowledge of Windows distribution and marketing is very embarrassing. Windows 2000 did come through OEM licensing and retail distribution (FPP - Full package product) in addition to Volume Licensing.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/oct99/launchdtpr.mspx

Microsoft provided Windows through OEM licensing, NT and 9x since Windows 1.0 so your "Apple throw both OS 9 AND 10 on their computers?" is baseless.

No, I don't consider simply changing color, or pattern functionality. How is that a contradiction if I didn't count that as a new feature for OS X either?

That is a change in interface and layout, not just a change in color. If you can't understand something that simple...

Thanks for proving my point, because Windows XP includes two themes, Classic and Luna, Luna includes the two pane Start menu in addition to color changes you mentioned. You should change your name to "I need to get the facts". You can also maintain the the classic look and feel with the Luna Start menu.

It's called OEM licensing... ever heard of it?

And your point? Microsoft has been doing that since the 1980's.

And OS X's wireless support and networking has always been, and still is better. What's your point?

It has always been good in XP, just improved for the better. Leopard just added differentiation between secure and unsecured wireless networks in the latest Leopard build 9A499. Vista and XP have had that a good while now. So who's better here.

As you said to me,

Since when did I tout being 64-bit as a holy grail? It was one feature out of many?

You made it sound that way.

It isn't just a Microsoft based website, it is THE Microsoft website. You'd think they would support their own CURRENT software...

Safari doesn't work with all websites, but many cross platform browsers such FireFox and Opera do a way better job. The point, there is a full version of IE 7 that is the default browser in Vista that works with the Microsoft website. So you point is still moot.

I haven't used them yet. I just use webmail for mail, VLC is a million times better than WMP, or Quicktime for simple video playback, and I just happened to decide to upgrade software before installing Firefox, which I still haven't tried on the Microsoft site.

So if I want to update my Windows OS before they release a Service Pack with everything in it, and I haven't used Windows in a while? I guess I need to update the OS ONE UPDATE AT A TIME.

And on a fresh Tiger reinstall, I was able to go right up from 10.4 to 10.4.10 without any issues.

Same with Windows XP, you have multiple options, in fact, you can download imagex utility from Microsoft download center and apply updates in whatever order you want and drop the image of the OS on the machine without any problems.

If you want to talk about audio problems, I have one word for you... KMIXER. You can't even get decent digital out in Windows without figuring out how to bypass how Windows handles audio, and that ISN'T a bug.

Double click the Volume control in the Notification areas. Vista's Audio takes the cake already with features like per-ap volume, so your points continue to drop.

The only time I've had kernel panics was when I was messing with funky kernel extensions. Removing the EXT2 kernel extension installed cleared up the problem. But speaking of issues like that, what do you do whey your machine blue screens?

First of all, I have never had to mess with the Windows Kernel, and stop comparing the days of Windows 9x blue screens with the stability of NT (2000, XP and Vista's) kernel. I have never had blue screen on those operating systems. And stop acting like Mac OS X has never had blue screens, out the gate Mac OS 10.0 was known as Kernel Panic. I have Macworld that reads "FIX ALL JAGUAR BUGS". It was so embarrassing.

How often do you defrag your hard drive? At least repairing permissions is fast.

That question is irrelevant, I'm running Windows Vista, even if you are on XP running Defrag is a once in a blue moon occasion. Windows had pre-emptive multi-tasking and support for large memory address space since NT 3.1. You just got that "luxury" at 10.0. Which proves the Mac OS has been a nightmare most of its life.

Edit: A quick google search shows that I'm not the only one that has problems on shutting down Vista.

Ok, I am typing up all the comments in a Word Doc from Macworlds comment section about OS X's bugginess. I hope you are ready answer all of them.

 

[DarkArchon]

Your knowledge of Windows distribution and marketing is very embarrassing. Windows 2000 did come through OEM licensing and retail distribution (FPP - Full package product) in addition to Volume Licensing.

My point wasn't that Windows didn't offer their other products through OEM licensing, but Apple had both OSes on EACH MACHINE. You didn't need to pick one or the other, or pay more, you just got both.

Thanks for proving my point, because Windows XP includes two themes, Classic and Luna, Luna includes the two pane Start menu in addition to color changes you mentioned. You should change your name to "I need to get the facts". You can also maintain the the classic look and feel with the Luna Start menu.

I was under the impression you were talking more about the release of Royal. True, Luna and Classic are significantly different, but Luna and Royale are just color scheme variations.

And your point? Microsoft has been doing that since the 1980's.

The point is XP came on most computers purchased, because it is the OS most manufacturers packaged on their computers, not because it is better. Apple sells their own hardware/software solutions. Before the XBox, Microsoft wasn't doing this. Apple almost collapsed before the return of Jobs. Business strategies are another discussion for another day.

It has always been good in XP, just improved for the better. Leopard just added differentiation between secure and unsecured wireless networks in the latest Leopard build 9A499. Vista and XP have had that a good while now. So who's better here.

I haven't tried this in Vista, but last time I wanted to share my internet connection across my second ethernet port in XP, I needed to restart. It seems like a lot of networking changes require a restart before they take affect in XP.

You made it sound that way.

I thought the mention of many features was clear.

Safari doesn't work with all websites, but many cross platform browsers such FireFox and Opera do a way better job. The point, there is a full version of IE 7 that is the default browser in Vista that works with the Microsoft website. So you point is still moot.

KHTML is pretty good. In some places it follows standards better than Firefox, but I would agree with your post if it was the Apple site Safari didn't work at. I've been using the Safari 3 beta since it came out, and the only sites I have problems with are photobucket, and IE only sites.

Same with Windows XP, you have multiple options, in fact, you can download imagex utility from Microsoft download center and apply updates in whatever order you want and drop the image of the OS on the machine without any problems.

That is a lot more work than just opening an updater app.

First of all, I have never had to mess with the Windows Kernel, and stop comparing the days of Windows 9x blue screens with the stability of NT (2000, XP and Vista's) kernel. I have never had blue screen on those operating systems.

The NT kernel is indeed MUCH more stable than the old Dos kernel, but in my experience, they still aren't exactly a rare occurrence. Since SP2 though, XP has been more stable.

And stop acting like Mac OS X has never had blue screens, out the gate Mac OS 10.0 was known as Kernel Panic. I have Macworld that reads "FIX ALL JAGUAR BUGS". It was so embarrassing.

I never said that OS X never has kernel panics, just in my experience, the only time I was having them was after installing a kernel extension so I could read from/write to EXT2/EXT3 partitions that I was using for Linux, so it was something I did that caused the instability, and it was something I was easily able to undo, fixing it.

OS X isn't perfect. I can't believe you haven't brought up the problem with optimizing after software updates that can break your OS install(or maybe did you and I just missed it?), and I find it ridiculous that Apple doesn't include the remote desktop software in their OS like Windows does. Overall, I like the interface of OS X a lot more. I find that between the dock and expose, it is easier to juggle between open windows, and I wouldn't trade the unified menubar for anything.

But back to the actual issue, 10.4->10.5 is no more an incremental update than XP -> Vista was. If there was one OS X upgrade I would have skipped, it probably would have been 10.3-10.4. It did have the least new features that I cared about, but it did feel faster, and more responsive, I do use dashboard some time, and Core Image is neat. Sure, if you started at 10.0, and worked your way up to 10.5, you would have paid more than a Vista Ultimate license, but I personally feel that 1. It is IMO a better product so I am willing to pay more, 2. There have been more innovations and new features in that time, 3. The steady stream of OS (not application as I don't use most of the packaged in Windows OR OS X applications) improvements and changes is nice as opposed to a new theme(Royal), Windows Desktop Search, then 6 years later finally a new OS. They both got continual bug fixes and security patches. 4. I like not having to mess with drivers. Stuff just works. Windows has gotten significantly better with its auto-detection of hardware. Everything worked for the most part for me with Vista (other than sound).

I got Vista Business X64 free legally through MSDNAA, so for me at least, it has no perceived cost, and yet I'll still chose to drop the money for Leopard, and use it over Vista. I find that OS X has features that, at least for me, make it worth buying even when I have free alternatives.

 

[BKKbill]

Apple Asking Feedback for Leopard 9A499
Interesting discussion Who will win? In this lifetime no one. It all becomes the chicken or the egg thingey.

 

[MrCrowbar]

This thread is going downhill fast.

Yep

 

[main chochacho]

this survey pertains more to performance, stability, and other technical issues rather than features. those are most definitely frozen by this point.