Could Snow Leopard Be Apples Vista?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Big Jelly, Aug 28, 2009.

  1. Big Jelly macrumors newbie

    Big Jelly

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    #1
    So the question goes could Snow Leopard become Apples version of VISTA?

    Before you scream hell no, let me ask you a few things and see if you agree.

    Everything I heard about Leopard was it was it's the best most stable OS ever made, and judging from alot of people this is apples Best OS.

    Enter Snow Leopard- Lots of "under the hood" improvements 64bit faster, leaner but could this cause consumers a bunch of headaches?

    Lots of compatibility issues, Buggy OS since its re-written lots of crashes and weirdness?

    I understand they are trying to move from 32 bit to 64 and using this new quasi 32/64 kernal and os but if consumers hears it's buggy, its slower (which some major sites are reporting in terms of graphics etc) is Apple leaving the door open for ridicule (commericals) bashing Snow Leopard?

    Im a windows and new OS X user so I like both, but if Snow Leopard requires a bunch of patches and fixes to get it stable and fast than what makes it any better than Vista was?

    For the record Im a Technet user as well and have been using the new Windows 7 x64 and it is rock solid, fast and stable. (minus the viruses :) )

    Dont get me wrong im not bashing Apple I just got a system for Snow Leopard Im just asking if anyone here would be willing to criticize apple if the new OS is a mess?
     
  2. great high wolf macrumors regular

    great high wolf

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #2
    I would be perfectly willing to criticise Apple and not run Snow Leopard if it was a mess.

    But I'm happy with it, so I don't feel the need to. ;)
     
  3. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #3
    Yes. People would criticise Snow Leopard if it was a mess. Or has problems. See the CS3 issue. But the question it i'd say answered - it's an improvement on Leopard, with some useful unde the hood stuff.

    It's a decent pretty stable OS, and it's 10.6.0 with 10.6.1 being worked on right now.
     
  4. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #4
    You obviously haven't read many threads here. :D;)

    I don't recall developers complaining about the bugginess in the GM, meaning it's fine. People will be rewriting their applications to be 64-bit, Cocoa, and multithreaded, but you have to give it a few months.

    "Sure, you could go buy a computer with an OS that is completely 64-bit and has frameworks in place for people to write their applications multithreaded from the start, or you could buy our OS, based in NT and still using the fifteen year old Registry idea!" :p
     
  5. CWallace macrumors 603

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #5
    10.5 Leopard was probably Apple's "Vista" in that it changed the interface and made changes under the hood.

    I'd say 10.6 Snow Leopard is more like the old days of Microsoft's Service Packs for Windows where in addition to bug fixes, they also added in new features and technologies which could break existing applications. Microsoft subsequently moved away from bundling new features, applications and technologies in their service packs and only included all the various security patches and bug fixes, making everything else optional downloads/installs.
     
  6. gilkisson macrumors 65816

    gilkisson

    #6
    Yes. And there are those who already are criticizing apple, regardless of how well done SL actually is. You know, Windows fan boys, Apple haters, blah blah.
     
  7. Manzana macrumors 6502a

    Manzana

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #7
    You can stop right there since no one ever said that about Vista when it was released.

    So short answer is no. Snow Leopard is not Apple's Vista, nothing approaches the Vista disaster - even Windows ME. Okay maybe I'm wrong about that.
     
  8. bpd115 macrumors 6502a

    bpd115

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #8
    It is far from a mess and not stable.

    The apps (like mail, safari, etc.) are 64 bit but unless you're running an XServe you're going to have a 32 bit kernel. You can force a 64 bit kernel if your machine is capable but mom and pop aren't going to know that or care.

    This is where the problem may lie, because if you're running a 64 bit kernel, you'll need 64 bit ktexts, or your 3rd party hardware may no longer work.

    The benchmarks showing quartz to be slower may be because of outdated benchmark apps, I haven't really looked into it.

    It really delivers everything Apple said it would.

    My Mac Pro was plenty fast before and the gains there are slight, (more responsive finder, OpenCL on video playback, etc.) but my fathers MBA (1st Gen) would choke on a 1080P video in Leopard, and it now runs fine in Snow Leopard.

    When 3rd party apps are released that leverage the power now under the hood of Snow Leopard, that's when you'll see the real advantage of this OS.

    It is far FAR from Vista.
     
  9. TheSpaz macrumors 604

    TheSpaz

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    #9
    I agree. Apple didn't totally re-write everything.

    OP: What do you think they did. Threw away all of their apps and said... Okay... Now to re-write the Finder. I doubt they could re-write something as complicated as the FINDER in a year.
     
  10. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #10
    This is a ridiculous thread. If you know anything about why Vista is crap then you'd understand SL is the exact opposite of that. Yes, there are some s/w incompatibilities. These are inevitable w/ almost any new OS release, but they are not major, and mostly affect legacy s/w, not anything current. Take a look at the SL app wiki linked on the front page. Heck if you want a headache then that was 10.0 and 10.1.

    BTW CS3 works fine. There is a difference between "support" and "compatible," which is apparently lost on lost of people.
     
  11. krimsen macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    #11
    I still like Tiger better overall. Did not try SL yet, though.

    Vista was much more than an incremental upgrade to XP, so on this level, you can't really compare Vista to SL.

    Remains to be seen, but as far as I've heard, it seems to be just fine for a .0 release.

    Not sure if I fully understand your point here...

    My recommendation is: Always wait for the first one or two bugfixes before making the jump to a new OS. On that matter: Even a month ago, my gf's fully patched Vista machine destroyed its file system while the computer was in standby. I've had only bad experiences with Vista, much more so than with any other OS I've ever used. Well, lately, Ubuntu seems to be pretty unstable, too...

    Been trying that, too, and I like it. Explorer crashing on a regular basis, though.

    Sure I would. I did not like Leopard at all till 10.5.4, it was just too buggy.

    BUMP: If there is such a thing as Apple's Vista, I'd vote for Leopard :D
     
  12. madog macrumors 65816

    madog

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Location:
    Korova Milkbar
    #12
    Short answer: No.

    Long answer: Nnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.


    ;)
     
  13. yegon macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    #13
    Totally.

    The first build of Leopard wasn't without compatibility problems and bugs either. Teething problems are understandable and are only an issue if they havent been resolved 3 months after the release.
     
  14. jlpoore89 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Location:
    Beaumont, Texas
    #14
    It is possible, highly unlikely, but completely possible. I mean they did write a 64-bit kernel in a year, and some say the kernel is the most complex component of an OS.

    But I agree with you I doubt they completely re-wrote everything.
     
  15. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #15
    Which is why I highly doubt that the second Leopard came out they started writing the new 64-bit kernel. They've probably been working on it since the G5 PowerMac.
     
  16. jaw04005 macrumors 601

    jaw04005

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    AR
    #16
    There are definitely some outstanding issues. Otherwise Mossberg, Pogue and Macworld wouldn't have went out of their way to point them out.

    At the moment, my biggest complaints are the broken contextual services (missing icons and default options) and the missing QuickTime preferences.

    I've had problems with Snow Leopard identifying my printer, and Photoshop CS 3 has crashed several times for no apparent reason. Additionally, when I add Dashboard to my Dock, it disappears across my Macs upon sync with MobileMe. It doesn't matter which Mac's dock I add it to either.

    So, like all new releases, Apple still has some work to do.
     
  17. creon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    #17
    I see how one could make comparisons but it is not being changed at the level that Vista had made. The OS, to put it frankly, is unchanged in my opinion. We got better speed, less footprint, and an open CL that will finally let developers use the the full potential of our machines. Yet, there is no large change that says it is a entirely new OS...you could say it is a build off of Leopard, but not a new OS.
     
  18. macrem macrumors 65816

    macrem

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #18
    I read your thread &... Hell NO! In SL, already fast Leopard apps are blazingly fast. When I log in, I launch Safari, Mail, iTunes, Terminal + usually a few other apps. With SL I can launch all of these together and there is no wait time on my 2.8GHz uMBP. Unlike Vista, SL is an awesome upgrade!
     
  19. cellocello macrumors 68000

    cellocello

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #19
    I'd venture to say SL is the exact opposite of Vista.

    • Vista changed the UI dramatically - opposite of SL
    • Vista ran slower on the same hardware - opposite of SL
    • Vista had an over blown ad campaign - opposite of SL
    • Vista broke a lot of software and devices - opposite of SL
    • Vista was long in coming, with a crazy long development cycle - opposite of SL

    So, uh, yea ......
     
  20. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #20
    Yea, like VISTA release being years late and SL release being month early :p
     
  21. Richard1028 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #21
    Based on years of experience with Adobe apps... I'd venture to say that they themselves share some blame in this.

    Adobe has the most bloated crap on the market. There's so much legacy code in their stuff even their consumer apps take literally gigabytes of drive space just to be usable.

    But yeah... it's Photoshop so what are you going to do? :confused:
     
  22. HLdan macrumors 603

    HLdan

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    #22
    Agreed, I have to be honest, it's really annoying when people create these threads prematurely. I clicked on it because I honestly thought the OP had some issues and needed help. All this thread is about is an inquisitor asking if SL has issues will we complain? Can't MR for once create nice threads of excitement? Give something a chance first. My main issue with these types of threads is when someone new signs up for MR and wants to a new Mac they immediately see these negative thread titles and think they made a mistake even giving a Mac a thought when in fact the thread isn't even about a person having problems.
    I happen to know from experience that Windows 7 is having issues but many threads from Windows users are generally positive.
     
  23. swingerofbirch macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    The Amalgamated States of Central North America
    #23
    I'm not saying this as a matter of fact, but I don't remember hearing so much about software incompatibilities or Mac OS X having to quarantine programs that can't run with past OS X upgrades. I frankly was kind of surprised at that. Maybe there is just more focus on it this time. I haven't gotten my up to date disc yet, so I can't give a personal opinion. But I am confused about 64 versus 32 bit and about the computer not booting into 64 bit and some people say it's faster if you do the trick where you force it to boot it into 64 bit mode. I don't understand why that isn't default. And it's more "Microsoft like" to leave things confusing to the end user. Maybe I'm just stupid on this issue--I admit I am actually. But when Apple advertises 64 bit and then leaves end users to wonder whether they should use 64 bit mode or not rather than using some plain language to explain it, I don't exactly feel like it's something for "the rest of us." It feels more geeky, like am I choosing speed over compatibility if I do 64 bit mode? Is it a hack or fully supported? I don't really know. And I realize I am ignorant on this issue, but nothing on the Apple SL site really makes it clear.

    Anyhow, I look forward to upgrading, just because upgrading is fun : )
     
  24. scaredpoet macrumors 604

    scaredpoet

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    #24
    It amazes me how short the memory is of people on this forum.

    Look back to when Leopard was first released. there was a lot fo the same anxious questions about compatibility, and complaints about this not working, and that locking up, etc. Then go back to Tiger. And Panther.

    It's a cycle that continually repeats. At the beginning there are all of these naysayers talking about how bad the upgrade went and how the previous version was so much more stable. Then as the next version comes out we talk about how the current version is soooo stable, and OMG is the upgrade going to be a disaster? Lather, rinse repeat...

    The quarantine thing is certainly different in how OS X behaves towards incompatible programs, but the issue has always been there. The difference is that now there's at least some intelligence about this, instead of just leaving the programs in place so they can crash, or worse bring the whole system down with it.

    In any case, in a week or three updates will come out, things will be good, Apple will likely release a .1 to fix any bugs they missed, and we'll be back to wondering if the next version of OS X will be Apples "Vista" again.

    P.S.: Safari seems snappier.
     
  25. Big Jelly thread starter macrumors newbie

    Big Jelly

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    #25
    Please dont get me wrong, the intent isnt to bash APPLE at all, but anyone who knows vista has been fixed but it took them some time to iron out the issues.

    I think Snow Leopard will also have these problems 10.61 May fix all these I dunno apple has a smaller install base and systems to fix so it should be as big of a deal.

    The question was could it become a marketing issue. Where Microsoft can say its 32/bit no wait its 64 bit, there tons of compatibility issues, rushed OS and showcase how Windows 7 is solid, fast, and compatible?

    Once again this isn't a troll thread Im just curious. In fact Im typing this on my Snow Leopard right now but im unable to get 64bit of it working though i meet the requirements.

    Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 iMac
     

Share This Page