Yeah i know but when i switched from PPC to Intel there was a very noticeable difference in overall refinement. Tiger on Intel seemed like a bit of a fudge job and it still does in comparison to the Tiger on PPC. I feel that is because apple limited the number of developers on the Intel side for secrecy sake and the fact that it may not have been released didn't give much impetus to the developers. However now the world world knows about Intel they can use all the resources available to get both versions optimized and hopefully OS X intel will get back to the level of stability of OS X PPC.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Had a go of the latest Leopard build
- Thread starter Ironduke
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah i know but when i switched from PPC to Intel there was a very noticeable difference in overall refinement. Tiger on Intel seemed like a bit of a fudge job and it still does in comparison to the Tiger on PPC. I feel that is because apple limited the number of developers on the Intel side for secrecy sake and the fact that it may not have been released didn't give much impetus to the developers. However now the world world knows about Intel they can use all the resources available to get both versions optimized and hopefully OS X intel will get back to the level of stability of OS X PPC.
i will agree that OS X seems more stable on PPC than Intel, in my experience. And i'm talking about Tiger, not Leopard.
I swear sometimes the finder is more responsive on an iBook 1.33Ghz than my MacBook Pro >_>;
Have you identified a specific problem with GC under the ObjC 2.0 runtime? I haven't. And since it's opt-in, developers can still choose manual memory management in cases where it may be needed.
I already said any application that needs to work with a data set larger than 4GB in size. I'm not saying a lot of these applications exist on the desktop today - at least not outside the scientific community - because the industry is just now making the transition to 64-bit operating systems running on commodity 64-bit hardware. But I also won't presume to guess what may become available as this transition progresses.
But in Leopard, PyObjC, RubyCocoa, and RoR are installed out of the box, which greatly simplifies deployment and opens the platform to a broader range of developers.
It seems you're arguing that Leopard isn't a great leap for developers because many of its features already existed elsewhere. I'm arguing that Leopard is a great leap for developers because Apple has made a lot of useful technology an officially-supported part of the OS X platform.
Can't argue there. Apple is way behind on Java 6.
It's too soon to tell, but I believe the scripting bridges will have a very bright future on OS X. RubyCocoa alone has advanced tremendously since Apple has thrown some resources at it. Plus it's easy to establish that both Python and especially Ruby have object models that will permit a much better bridge to Cocoa than Java ever could.
Just about anything with a UI can utilize Core Animation to better convey change-of-state, so I think it's useful for applications large and small.
See above. Core Animation is not just about eye candy. It also makes it possible to enrich the UI in useful ways.
I don't believe that's true, but my employment at Microsoft ended in 2005, so what do I know?
Agreed. But since commodity, 64-bit desktop hardware is already here, it makes sense that we begin the transition in software. Microsoft and the Linux distros are doing it by offering separate 32 and 64-bit versions of the OS. Apple is doing it better by bringing 32 and 64-bit together as one.
Okay...so by reading this thread it seems that:
a) A couple of significant (time machine, overall stability increase...) changes in leopard but arguably not worth the, what ~2.5 (not 6, oops!) years?, waiting time.
b) A lot of work under-the-hood was done. The work is still being debated (see Alloye & Rpp3po) as wether or not it's significant.
As a average joe computer user I don't know if i'll be upgrading to leopard. I have absolutely no use for all the under-the-hood stuff. It might lead to something after developers get to play with them but currently no use to me. As for
a) time machine, i already backup my stuff regularly time machine is nice but not necessary (i'm sure it's useful for a lot of people though).
b)Spaces: I already have something similar i like (smackbook) so not for me.
c)quick look: nice but not really special to me. I figure it's easier to just open the damn .pdf and scroll normally, it adds like what? 2secs?
I don't know, i can go on but i think you get the point. As a student I can't really justify spending $80+ on a peice of software that, while having some nice goodies, simply isn't that significant of a change.
a) A couple of significant (time machine, overall stability increase...) changes in leopard but arguably not worth the, what ~2.5 (not 6, oops!) years?, waiting time.
b) A lot of work under-the-hood was done. The work is still being debated (see Alloye & Rpp3po) as wether or not it's significant.
As a average joe computer user I don't know if i'll be upgrading to leopard. I have absolutely no use for all the under-the-hood stuff. It might lead to something after developers get to play with them but currently no use to me. As for
a) time machine, i already backup my stuff regularly time machine is nice but not necessary (i'm sure it's useful for a lot of people though).
b)Spaces: I already have something similar i like (smackbook) so not for me.
c)quick look: nice but not really special to me. I figure it's easier to just open the damn .pdf and scroll normally, it adds like what? 2secs?
I don't know, i can go on but i think you get the point. As a student I can't really justify spending $80+ on a peice of software that, while having some nice goodies, simply isn't that significant of a change.
6YEARS ?? since when has it been 6 years waiting for leopard. its been 7 years since OSX was first introduced, and the number of improvements from 10.0 is endless.
Tiger was released on April 29, 2005, so the wait for Leopard has been about 2.5 years.
I still contend that Leopard will be the most significant release for OS X developers to date. And that's important since it's the applications that ultimately make or break the platform.
you are joking? right? this is the most significant update to osx, 64BIT for a start, core animation, whole new finder? ya think thats done in an afternoon? lol, everything has basically been upgraded, optimised or rewritten.
Don't get me wrong. I'm really looking forward to Leopard. Stacks, the Mail Enhancements, non-(Finder-)blocking network sharing (!!), and the Finder enhancements are what I am after. I agree to a, b, c, though.
OS X already IS a very excellent platform. There is no need to ditch 60% of the code as with XP because of serious crappiness and reinvent everything. Don't underestimate the tuning "under the hood". I can't estimate yet how much they have accomplished, but there is always room. If anybody has ever worked with BeOS back then on much smaller machines, you know what "snappiness" can be. It's really important to me, that an UI doesn't waste my time and if Leopard gets even closer to the ideal, I want it.
My argument with Alloye was really very specific about if Leopard is a bigger update from a developer standpoint than Tiger was. And I must say I really underestimated his insight in my first post. We have both made good points since then. After all I can agree that it depends what kind of stuff you are developing if this is the more important update for you or not.
Going all 64 bit today is the right way to go, no question and very foresighted. Just don't expect too much of it already today.
I'd say, give Leopard a try in the store. If you are into good UI's as I am and it meets your expectations buy it, else leave it. Tiger's also good.
Alloye, do you know if Leopard will incorporate anything comparable to Vista's Superfetch? That is one part that really rocks (ever started Photoshop in 1.5 seconds?)!
A nice (and necessary) tweak, but one that for many will be of little use out of the box...
I think people are expecting/want Leopard to show dramatic and instant changes off the bat, when in reality it's more subtle than that. Apple aren't replacing this yacht, they're just nudging it in the right direction to keep it on course.
I'm going to Leopard right out the door. I don't count on my Mac for work related stuff, and the beauty of software is that it will be upgraded and the price will not change (for Leopard at least).
So there will not be any price cuts to get screwed on, and the software will only get better. I trust that 10.5.0 will be stable enough to the point where I'm not gonna be hindered by any relatively significant bugs.
So there will not be any price cuts to get screwed on, and the software will only get better. I trust that 10.5.0 will be stable enough to the point where I'm not gonna be hindered by any relatively significant bugs.
I think you are thinking about QuickLook not CoverFlow, QuickLook lets you hit space to, well, quickly look at a file instead of having to open up the program that controls it. So images, documents, pdfs, movies, music... anything like that can be Quick Looked and it is a real nice thing in terms of time saving.
I can't think of the last time I have had Finder crash in either Tiger or Leopard, but I can tell you that I haven't had Finder crash yet in Leopard, Safari 3 Beta crashes, but it is a beta, but then again so is Leopard... so weird dichotomy there.
I have both Tiger 10.4.10 and Leopard installed on my system, Leopard runs just as smooth if not smoother than Tiger, on the same equipment. So Leopard cuts off the G3s and the really old G4s... whoop-dee-doo, it's not the end of the world in terms of performance requirements.
It might help if you were to list off your system specs. That might be the reason why you have an unresponsive system that crashes all the time, not the OS. Because for me, Tiger and Leopard are smooth as butter, Leopard perhaps margarine-ally (har har?) better.
Funny you mention it. I messed around with BeOS for a while after it was ported to x86. It had a fantastic filesystem and - like you said - it was amazingly quick compared to everything else at the time. Plus its C++ API was very clean and well designed, especially when compared to the behemoth known as Microsoft Foundation Classes.
Unfortunately, Be, Inc. didn't survive long enough to make BeOS feature complete. First they tried going head-to-head with Microsoft. Then they tried being some sort of multimedia specialty company. Then they hoped to be saved by Apple. In the end, BeOS was a great product with tremendous potential ruined by poor management. It really was the Amiga all over again.
That amazing load time is due to how SuperFetch works. Basically, Vista pays attention to the applications you use most often and preloads them into memory. I don't believe Leopard does anything similar, but my perception is that Leopard launches large applications noticeably faster than Tiger.
Reports Are That Leopard Is Radically Faster On 64-bit Intel Processor Mac Pros
All I can surmise is that you haven't read any of the reports that declare Leopard to be radically faster on Intel based Mac Pros than Tiger. That may also hold up for 64-bit G5 Macs as well. I don't view Leopard as a "nudge" at all. More like a major "shove" in the right direction.
Having the 3D dock (non-optional) is a step in the wrong direction IMO...I wish OSX was just a bit more customisable without 3rd party hacks...
I Prefer Recent Items To The Dock
Why even use the dock when you have Recent Items? I rarely even use the dock.
Recent Items meh
I am a massive Quicksilver user, but the dock is used to quickly check torrent download speeds etc...having it small on the left with a little magnification (I have it like this on autohide) looks a bit rubbish with Leopard...But the point remains that this 'aint a new yacht (read:Vista over XP). It's a streamlining and optimizing of what was already a great OS.
When Porsche brings out a new 911, people don't go "Oh what? It's still got four wheels?"
I also don't own an Intel mac, and such reports always just make me jealous
I have had a go on a friend's install and it did not feel any slower than Tiger, which for a beta was not bad going, as there was plenty of debug code still left.
However, before everyone claps their hands in glee, I noticed some smaller apps refused to load, even if they could install. No show stoppers, in that Adobe and Microsoft and Apple are covered, but anyone who indulges in shareware, should tread carefully before rushing to upgrade.
The Network Spinning Wheel of Death (NSWD) is still there, if you forget to disconnect before putting your machine to sleep. Apple, please make shares autodisconnect if the the other side says bye-bye. I would care more about this being fixed than having 64bit goodness, as I often get caught out by this.
However, before everyone claps their hands in glee, I noticed some smaller apps refused to load, even if they could install. No show stoppers, in that Adobe and Microsoft and Apple are covered, but anyone who indulges in shareware, should tread carefully before rushing to upgrade.
The Network Spinning Wheel of Death (NSWD) is still there, if you forget to disconnect before putting your machine to sleep. Apple, please make shares autodisconnect if the the other side says bye-bye. I would care more about this being fixed than having 64bit goodness, as I often get caught out by this.
I call bs.
I also call bs on "marginally faster".
even the wwdc beta was about twice as fast as tiger on my rev a mbp, especially spotlight was instant.
I am sure my specs are more that enough not to expect any of the problems I've been having. It is a MacBook with a 2ghz Core duo, 1GB of ram and a 80GB 5400RPM HDD, by the way.
I plan on upgrading it soon with a 7200RPM 200GB HDD and 2GB of ram which I hope will help with the performance. I will also buy a copy of Leopard as soon as it hits to see if it improves things, if it does not I can always go back to Tiger again.
I must admit that after hearing people sing Apples praises I had expected a lot more from OSX than I have been getting. But I cannot fault it too much, it is still light years ahead of anything from m$.
I call bs on your whole post. See how easy it is.
Bear in mind when people post on speeds with Leopard that few if any have benchmarked I/O or processing rates before or after. Nor is their any 'standard' installation to benchmark from. MBPs with nothing but default installed apps also boot faster than those laden with Adobe/Microsoft and the like.
Saying that your revA MBP is somehow twice as fast with an old build and extrapolating from that that everyone with newer builds and newer machines should experience a similar increase in speed is just ridiculous. YMMV and all that.
As for the NSWD - it happened and your naysaying does not change a thing. Try proving that it cannot happen before you start with your 'bs' posts.
Keep in mind that in old Leopard builds there runs a lot of debug code in the background, so theoreticly old builds run way slower.