Leopard catching up with Vista

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Aug 9, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 65816

    Fiveos22

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #2
    Well, hey, why don't we just speculate on the trivial new features. A FrontRow update is no reason to update an operating system. I believe Apple when they say that there are big things that are being kept secret in the upcoming release. Most likely under the hood.

    I thought the coup was releasing Panther and Tiger before Vista/Longhorn. I hope the view isn't that Vista and Leopard are competitors.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Belly-laughs

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Location:
    location location
    #3
    I thought Vista was already caught, eaten and digested :confused:
     
  4. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    After looking at Vista on the web, what I can see (and the general consenus seems to be) that Vista = Tiger, with Tiger slighly better, maybe. (Obviously a remotely affordable ie. not Vista Ultimate edition will be considerably worse than Tiger) how Leopard can be "catching up" is a mystery to me.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #5
    Guys, this is just a case of ZDNET putting a bad headline on a perfectly reasonable story. Nowhere in the story does it claim that Leopard is catching up to Vista, quite the opposite. When this same story ran on C|Net, it had a different headline. ZDNET picked it up and some idiot editor completely misinterepreted the story.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Fiveos22

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #6
    The "catching up" title is not misleading, its being mis-interpreted. They mean that the ship date of Leopard may be catching up with the release date of Vista. Its being mis-intrepreted as meaning that Leopard is trying to reach technical parity with Vista.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #7
    But that's not accurate either ... most people were under the impression that Leopard would be released in the first quarter of 2007, now we learn it will be the second quarter.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    crees!

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    MD/VA/DC
    #8
    So?
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #9
    So what? My point was that the ZDNET headline was wrong. It had nothing to do with the story that followed. Reporters don't write their own headlines and the story wasn't even written for ZDNET, it was written for their sister site, C|Net.

    So, what's your problem with what I wrote?
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    crees!

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    MD/VA/DC
    #10
    The story is about the release of Leopard being pushed back to Spring 2007. The title of the story implies a joke that Apple is catching up with MS in OS delays. What don't you understand about that?
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #11
    And you really think ZDNET meant it that way? No chance.
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    crees!

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    MD/VA/DC
    #12
    Nice to show your bias and not give a story credibility when deserved. I could say stop being so narrow-minded... but I won't.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #13
    How am I showing bias? All I'm saying is read the story for what it is, not what the headline says. The story was originally published on C|net under the headline "Leopard nipping at Vista's Heels." ZDNET picks up the same story and inserts a headline "Leopard Catching Up With Vista" that, on at least first glance, seems to be about the new OSX catching up feature wise with Vista. The story isn't really about that ... but neither is it a snarky slap at Microsoft for its frequent calendar slips.

    You offer a re-interpretation of that headline that seems highly implausible -- only someone wildly pro-Apple would read the headline that way -- and then accuse me of bias? What?
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    crees!

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    MD/VA/DC
    #14
    Well then go bitch at MacRumors for not posting the original article. The title of the article did it's job. That's to gain interest. After reading the article you understand the real meaning of the title which is still true to the story. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I see both sides of this discussion, you on the other hand only see one.

    (unsubscribed)
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #15
    Yeah, you're a real paragon of virtue, starting up a flame war with me over nothing and then declaring yourself unsubscribed. Nice work.
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    Shadow

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Keele, United Kingdom
  17. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #17
    I have to agree with you. I read that article thinking it'd be a stab at Apple for "trying to catch up" as far as features go, but like you said the headline is very misleading. This article is actually in favor of Apple.
     
  18. macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #18
    I was under the initial impression that the next Windows OS would be released in 2002. Because that's when MS said it would be.

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

    So any impression is self-generated.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    dsnort

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    In persona non grata
    #19
    I think the author meant to imply that the release dates were getting closer together. Although I admit the title is somewhat misleading, when I first saw it my hackles got up.

    EDIT. I really should have read the rest of the thread before posting. I would list all those that beat me to it, but it would take too long!
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #20
    I don't disagree with any of that. MS has unquestionably dropped the ball on Vista -- taking way too long and ripping out most of the revolutionary features they touted early. And, given what Jobs did with the Intel release schedule, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we get a "surprise" Leopard release sometime in the first quarter of 2007.
     
  21. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #21
    I really hope Apple does surprise us with an early release. It would be so great! I don't think I can wait until spring to play with Time Machine and iChat. :p
     
  22. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #22
    I think that is incorrect. I am pretty sure Steve said 2007, perhaps even "before WWDC" in 2007, at last year's WWDC keynote. That was certainly the impression I got, although I'm not about to go back to the tape to dig up an exact quote 'cause I'm both lazy and pressed for time. :)

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

    playaj82

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Location:
    Kingman, AZ
    #23
    I do not want Apple to rush this OS. Take some time, make everything work, that will make me happier than one or two neat features sacrificed by everything else not working.
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    winmacguy

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #24
    I posted the article and I would agree that while the article itself is very good the headline is misleading and therefore easily misinterpreted. I read it that either technically or release wise Leopard is somehow going to be potentially released after Vista/ or that Leopard as an operating system is slowly catching up to the level of features or innovation that Vista will potentially have. Either way I believe that both of those understandings would be wrong.:rolleyes:
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    wyatt23

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Forest Hills, NY
    #25
    it's just a headline. it's only offensive if you let it be.


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

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

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

Share This Page