Now since there's VISTA, won't Leopard have to be really amazing?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by G5Unit, Jan 5, 2006.

  1. G5Unit macrumors 68020

    G5Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Location:
    I'm calling the cops
    #1
    I was just thinking this. Mac updates in the past have been ok, but not as crazy of an update of a windows OS. Now that Apple will have to come out with a better OS than microsoft(last done with OS X 10.0), could we expect to see something HUGE? Like a complete surprise or a complete overhaul? Just wondering.

    Also, will Leopard and VISTA be Next gen?
     
  2. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #2
    I think your thinking went wrong with the phrase "Now since there's Vista." Show me the money! :eek: :p :D
     
  3. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #3

    I'm not quite sure what you mean. By definition, they should really both be considered next generation. :)

    I reckon Apple would have expected Vista earlier (like Microsoft promised) and almost considers Tiger as the Vista competitor rather than Leopard.
     
  4. satans_banjo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Location:
    SE London
    #4
    define 'next gen'. i always thought it was an inane buzzword
     
  5. Jon'sLightBulbs macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    #5
    In my best media-spun vocab, by next gen, he means: with revolutionary changes that will define a new paradigm, rather than merely add to an existing base of ideas.

    In real english, this means interface glitter, glamour, and gluttony.

    :)
     
  6. Aqua Structure macrumors member

    Aqua Structure

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    #6
    Having been following Longwait development from day one, I can tell you that Vista is basically XP with a slightly redesigned UI, along with some new features "borrowed" from Panther and Tiger. Nothing new to see here.
     
  7. kalisphoenix macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #7
    I don't think the "next gen" OSes will be manipulated with a keyboard and mouse and displying on a traditional monitor...

    but that's just subjective terminology. For a given value of $NEXT_GEN_OS, I think it's going to be Vista versus Leopard.

    I'm fine with all of the glitz in OS X, but what I really want to see is Apple beefing up the gut-level stuff like the NeXT Services, some work on making Darwin an industrial-strength server platform, and so on. Don't get me wrong -- OS X's still the best, but I want the UNIX heavy cannon to start firing at the undercarriage of Windows. I could give a **** about game framerates.

    Windows will continue to progress much as it has been -- unevenly, but interestingly, and decidedly unique. And GNU/Linux will continue on its juggernaut path sweeping up the server positions and becoming even more startlingly powerful and impressive in its scope and potential.

    The 90's, were shot through an ugly lense, cinematically speaking. All three of the major players got much-needed uplifts in the first half of the decade. I predict that this will continue and we'll see more aesthetic accomplishments, given the lowered priority of space- and process- efficiency. Greater interconnectability, since a server for ssh or http or whatever will no longer make an appreciable dent in the operations of a new computer. I think computers might become very seamless in the next few years.

    But get ready for a massive paradigm shift. 2009 or 2010, I think, we're going to see something really really big. There's too much money being sunk in computers for us to continue much longer with serial ports and platter hard drives. Cell's not all it was cracked up to be, probably, but I predict that every computer bought in the next five years will be an abacus compared to the Free at McDonald's machines of 2011.
     
  8. mduser63 macrumors 68040

    mduser63

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #8
    Umm...what are you talking about? Windows updates are not very significant. ME->XP is a huge upgrade, but of course 2000 came out about the same time as ME and 2000->XP is a very minor update. One way you can tell that Windows doesn't really get upgraded very much is that a lot of new Windows software still works on Windows 98, and some of it even works on Windows 95. That's because not much has changed. Vista is shaping up to be less than spectacular from my point of view. Besides that, XP hasn't had an upgrade since it came out, by the time it gets one (Vista), OS X will have gone from 10.1->10.2->10.3->10.4->10.5 with significant improvements in each release.

    What's "crazy" about any Windows upgrade? Very minor UI tweaks, or is it the addition of tons of new wizards to supposedly make things easier? It seems to me like those are the main things than get added in a windows upgrade.
     
  9. Jedi128 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #9
    Umm, I would say that Tiger is already amazing.... And think about this: OS X has had a major revision every year since 2001.... Microsoft on the other hand has had nothing since XP (which was .....2002? right?).

    SO if it sounds like, ohh! MSoft is really trying hard on this one, its because they have plently of ground to make up on Apple.
     
  10. pknz macrumors 68020

    pknz

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    NZ
    #10
    Windows has a major security update every day. Beat that Mac OS X.
     
  11. kalisphoenix macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #11
    Personally, I think that's wonderful. It proves your point (and I'm not arguing with you), but I think platform stability's a plus. It's one of my (very few) complaints about GNU/Linux.
     
  12. kalisphoenix macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #12
    Just to be a devil's advocate...

    XP's not needed much in the way of serious revamps since 2001. OS X, however, was practically unusable until 10.2. Sure, XP is a bloated, obnoxious OS, but it's weathered a lot of changes in technology without much in the way of change.
     
  13. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #13
    But really, who wants to use 10 year old software anyway?
     
  14. kalisphoenix macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #14
    Not what he was saying. More like "Who wants to use Windows98 and its low system requirements instead of a bloated heap like XP to run today's software?"
     
  15. G5Unit thread starter macrumors 68020

    G5Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Location:
    I'm calling the cops
    #15
    Well, when ever I am on my dad's computer(PC) these popups always say NEW UPDATES! HOLY HAXOR! THIS WILL TAKE UP EVEN MORE RAM! It's annoying. They should just have a new update every month or 2, like MACs.
     
  16. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #16

    MS only releases security updates once a month.
     
  17. puckhead193 macrumors G3

    puckhead193

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    NY
  18. dornoforpyros macrumors 68040

    dornoforpyros

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    #18
    I've never actually owned a PC with anything other than windows 98 on it. As far as I'm concerned it's where windoze peaked.
     
  19. After G macrumors 68000

    After G

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #19
    FWIW I liked Windows 2000. XP minus the Fisher Price interface.
    (though I like Fisher Price toys, nothing wrong with that company)
     
  20. reberto macrumors 65816

    reberto

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    #20
    One reason why my PC has 2K pro
     
  21. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #21
    VISTA is one big fat cow. It's this Windows release that will finally do Microsoft in, for good. Isn't it ironic? The one company to defeat Microsoft is Microsoft itself.


    Here's to the Crazy Ones [​IMG]
     
  22. adk macrumors 68000

    adk

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Location:
    Stuck in the middle with you
    #22
    My wallet knows this better than anybody, but hey, it's worth it. Yes, I spend $129 on tiger, but I don't think I could go a day without spotlight anymore.
     
  23. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #23
    Um, you're actually wrong here. You're certainly correct that XP and 2000 are nearly identical (if you turn off the stupid default XP interface, XP is about as different from 2000 as 10.4 is from 10.3, less in terms of useful new features).

    But the NT codebase on which 2000 and XP are based is VASTLY different from the archaic 95/98 codebase, and 2000/XP are in turn tremendous improvements over NT4, despite sharing a basic architecture. If you never used preemptive multitasking, multiple users, or protected memory, then 98 and 2000 might not feel much different, but they are drastically different beasts from a technical standpoint.

    The reason stuff still runs on 98SE is because A) A surprising number of people are still nursing along archaic PCs and never upgraded... and B) Microsoft's big thing is and has been for a very long time keeping the old stuff more or less running.

    According to some things I've read, one of the reasons (certainly not the only one, though) that Windows is so unstable and takes so long between significant upgrades is that Microsoft puts a gigantic amount of effort into making sure older stuff still runs on newer OSes. They fail a lot of the time, obviously, but they try hard. An example I heard was that there was a special bit of code in... 95 or 98, I forget which, that would detect if you were running a specific popular program (SimCity, I think), and adjust the way the program was run so it would work properly.

    Not that Apple doesn't do reasonably well with backward compatibility--thanks to Classic I have apps from the mid 90s that still work fine, and most stuff written for early versions of OSX still works fine--but the background of OSX was in serious flux until at least 10.3, which is among the reasons almost nothing new runs on 10.0, and most stuff requires at least 10.2.8.

    Anywho, Vista is very pretty, but it doesn't otherwise seem like that major of an upgrade to me. Tiger should hold its own just fine against it, and the'll be at least Lepoard and probably another release (if not two) before MS even previews whatever comes after Vista.
     
  24. mduser63 macrumors 68040

    mduser63

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #24
    I realize that XP/2000 are using the NT codebase while 95-ME were essentially still using the same old DOS based code. And XP is certainly a vast improvement over ME (the last "old" Windows), but most of the changes were under the hood, not things that the end user is likely to benefit directly from, other than in the form of increased stability. The Mac OS on the other hand, in addition to gaining preemptive multitasking, multiple users, modern memory management, etc, has had new features like Exposé, Spotlight, Dashboard, the Dock, etc added. Those are things that the average user can really see and benefit from.

    I'd much prefer to be using an OS that gets updated every 1.5-2 years, and not only updated with architectural improvements, though those are certainly important, but with features that are exciting and useful and make it easier, more efficient and more enjoyable for me to use my computer and get work done.
     
  25. VanNess macrumors 6502a

    VanNess

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #25
    Vista does bring some nice new features, albeit most of them are cosmetic salutes to OS X. Even though features such as fast file searching and "gadgets" are practically yesterday's news now to OX X users, Windows users who suffered over the years with XP and generally are clueless regarding OS X (most corporate IT departments) will probably welcome them with open arms as remarkable "innovations" from Microsoft.

    But, imo, underneath all of Vista's glitz, there is an underlying problem. Gates, back around 2003, touted what we now know as Vista as a complete "from the ground up" rewrite of Windows, a "bet the company" release. Since then, as the years came and went, Vista started shedding features right and left so Microsoft could release something before the decade drew to a close. So instead of real innovation, i.e., a complete code rewrite of Windows, apparently some of the most broken and beleaguered Windows legacy baggage in terms of security will press forward in Vista.

    ActiveX ? Check...

    System Registry? Check...

    Now I'm sure Microsoft will do a remarkable job of making Vista very secure, but stuff like ActiveX and the Registry are tools of the trade for virus and malware/spyware authors. Even if Microsoft manages to build a better mousetrap this time, it won't take too long for someone determined enough to break it, and since Microsoft let Spyware, Inc. evolve over the years into a multi-million dollar industry, there will be more than enough determination to go around if Vista sees wide acceptance.

    That's the catch, and it's a huge one. For all of it's razzle-dazzle appeal on the outside of Vista to entice Windows upgraders, it's going to be pretty much an act of faith for customers hoping for relief from the constant barrage of attacks on their present XP-based machines, whether they realize it or not. All things considered, I don't think it's a question of will Vista end up in pretty much the same security mess as XP is in now, it's a question of when. And given the history of the players involved here, I'm betting it's going to be a lot sooner that anyone wants to even imagine. (Especially, the MS-friendly technology media.)
     

Share This Page