Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'macOS' started by Sdahe, Nov 8, 2007.
What does Leopard has or can do that Windows Vista can't?
oh my, let the flaming being
anyway, i am 100% for XP, vista, is the biggest piece of crap ive ever used, i dont have it on any of my personal machines just because of the horrible experiences on friends machines
but yeah, there are things both OS's can do that each other cant, so thats not really a good question
but OSX can run all of the mac software, which is quite useful apple makes some great apps
Easy integrated backup
stacks (I have no idea why people dont like them though)
spaces (best virtual desktop client ever, even beats any linux distro that I have ever used)
to name a few,
overall the biggest ones are security, stability, and speed!
XP to Vista = slows machine down
10.4 to 10.5 = overal speed improvements everywhere!
I'd have to say UNIX.
Sorry for the stupid question but I want to know these things so when I speak with my friends (windows users) and they start bugging me because I use Mac... I'll have thing to talk back. I'm new to mac since 4 months ago so I don't have that much of experience with MAC...
Well - for one thing, it's stable (for me at least). Vista used to crash on me constantly.
for one thing
Leopard is a 64 bit OS with, get this part now, with drivers.
A better question would be what does Vista have that Leopard doesn't?
apart from viruses, etc.
Step One: Get new friends.
You shouldn't allow their ignorance to become your problem. Just enjoy your Mac and don't worry about what others think.
Actually Windows XP works pretty good if you don't mind being bothered every 10 seconds closing alert messages. Seriously, whenever I "must" boot into Windows the alerts drive me nuts. Mac OS didn't bug you with warnings until Leopard came along. Now it asks you if you are sure you want to launch a certain application if you download it. Duh! I hate when they dumb the OS down for the general public.
Regurgitating thoughts from the grossly misinformed Mac fanboys here won't get you very far when it comes to making valid and sound arguments for the Mac platform. Go out and do some real research, otherwise you will get eaten alive by the PC fanboys.
> What does Leopard has or can do that Windows Vista can't?
Well... it's not my intent to start a flame war with my following comments, but comment I shall.
First, let me say I am in the process of gathering the funds to purchase a Mac Pro. I haven't had a Mac for years... I briefly had an SE/30 that I got from work, but it got squirrly and crashed all the time, so I gave up on it, not willing to invest the time or $ to bring it back to life.
I've always liked Macs, and the folks that use them... I have a 16GB iPod Touch. I love it. I think the UI is probably the best mp3 player UI ever. For real. I bow down to Apple for that. Good job folks!
I have Vista on a few PC's here and unlike many others, I have not had any problems with Vista. I've never had a BSOD on -any- of my Vista boxes. That's not to say I think Vista is problem free... yes, Vista has problems.
So does Leopard. Like the "moving files data loss bug." I read that bug may date back to Panther... dunno. But that's a pretty serious bug and if it -does-date back to Panther, well, shame on Apple for not fixing it. I guess the only work around for now is to not move files from one physical drive to another physical drive... copy then delete.
Since I'm going to get a Mac Pro I've been reading Apple discussion forums daily on people's experiences with Leopard. (Being fully aware that most posts to such a forum, just like the Vista forums, are based on folks having issues with their respective OS. So there aren't many "hey, I love it, works for me" type posts.)
From what I've read in the forums, and in the online press, many people are having problems updating from a previous version of OS X to Leopard. (Hmm... sounds vaguely familiar to similar posts in the Vista NG's.) No doubt there are folks who had no problem updating to Leopard... just like there were folks who had no problem updating to Vista.
It would appear that some think the Leopard uproar closely matches the Vista uproar when it was initially released. One wonders if the Leopard uproar will have the same staying power as the Vista uproar, which continues to this day.
So... these are just some of my thoughts on the comparison of Leopard to Vista. I -will- have Leopard on my Mac Pro, which I hope to fully fund within the next month or so. (It will make an AWESOME Christmas present to myself!) I'm excited, very excited, at the prospect of becoming a Mac owner again. And I hope no one thinks I'm an MS nutjob casting aspersions at Apple or Leopard and just trying to get people riled up. That's not my intention at all.
I much prefer using OS X. I like that I don't have all the programs on my computer running all the time even when they are not in use (like word processor, and other stuff that keep modules running all the time).
I like that I'm not always worried about viruses. But, I'm not naive enough to insist that the Macs are more secure (especially with Leopard).
But, really, do people actually think before they post canned answers. Let speak a bit honestly here.
I have both Vista Ultimate and Leopard installed on my Mac Pro 2.66 GHz w/ 3 GB of RAM.
I can attest to both operating systems. I'm no Windows lover. But, I will give it credit where credit is due.
For simplicity I'll borrow the points listed in the quote above:
Probably a draw at this point. Windows Vista has a pretty strong system going now. But, there are more viruses and hacks trying to get in. OS X has it's weak spots, but there are fewer people trying to exploit them.
Really??? I know that's the preferred answer. But, seriously. Windows has a rep. But, for the majority, it is stable.
I've had a lot of Mac crashes over the years, and I read about a ton of them daily from people trying to figure things out.
Microsoft manages to make something stable on millions of unique configurations. OS X only has to work with a small number of potential configurations. And, yet, OS X has lots of issues. Especially when upgrading from a previous version (why can't Apple make an upgrade routine that works reliably).
Big deal. I once thought I'd use that one a lot. But, I just can't seem to convince myself that it's more efficient than just clicking on the icon in the dock.
On my Mac Pro, Windows is by far more responsive than OS X. Everything I click on gets an instant response. I usually wait a bit in OS X (not long, just longer than in Windows Vista).
I absolutely prefer iMovie HD 6 and iDVD. But, for fun I composed a video and burned it to DVD in Windows Vista (using Vista's built-in software). And, surprisingly it burned about 2 hours of video to DVD (including encoding time) in about 30 minutes.
The same task in OS X in iDVD took almost 4 hours to encode and burn to DVD.
Same machine. Same task. Just Windows versus Mac OS.
Now, I have encoded some projects in OS X in less time. But, that particular one showed me a difference.
[*]Easy integrated backup
I've used Windows Vista's integrated backup routine. Very easy. And, it's a full clone that's easy to restore.
Time Machine is good for getting a single file back quickly though.
[*]stacks (I have no idea why people dont like them though)
They're O.K. But, hardly something I'd go looking for.
[*]spaces (best virtual desktop client ever, even beats any linux distro that I have ever used)
Unfortunately, they don't work with many applications. Well, actually, it's the applications that don't work with Spaces.
In all honesty, the absolute only issue I have with Vista is the new license / activation restrictions. But, that's really not an issue unless you want virtual machines or to move Vista to a new computer.
I am a loyal OS X user. And, I spend 99% of my time in OS X. Not because it's better, definitely not because it's faster, and definitely not because it's more attractive to look at. No, I do it simply because I prefer the way it works.
But, if I were after benchmarks, and raw speed, I'd be using Vista instead.
For me, I just like the Finder, the method of doing things, and so on.
I do switch to Vista for photo editing, audio manipulation / music remixing / editing, and such just because I prefer the accuracy of the tools / programs I use in Windows compared to the limited selection available in OS X.
I'm sick of hearing OSX is more secure *because* there are fewer people trying to exploit them. Sure, there are fewer people who try, because it is so hard to succeed that only the most taleted ones manage to find a way; and those know better and are probably unix-lovers who do no harm for the beloved operating system. Windows is so easy to break that high-school students can do whatever they want to, and we all know how "intelligent" software those boys write, don't we?
Sure, everything can be broken, but Windows is so much easier than Unix so many virus writers have just chosen the easy way (probably because they're unable to succeed on the hard way).
Actually, for a heavy-user, it *is* a big deal. Spaces will probably be even bigger deal for some of us that have dozens of windows open at all times. But there is no comparable feature on the Dark Side, so windows-people tend to just forget this feature.[/QUOTE]
Actually, a "clean UI" is should be a system requirement. I hate cluttered UI whether it is operating system or a web page full of ads. Apple's is as clean as it gets and I love it. Windows has to be credited because it has become unified in the 12 years they have done nothing for it, except changing the window appearance from tools to toys 6 years ago.
OSX waits until it has calculated all window content and then puts it out when it's ready. Windows begins drawing as soon as it is told to, whether it has something to draw or not. Sure, on a light load this seems to be "snappier", but under heavy load where you can clearly see empty windows being filled bit by bit it gets very frustrating. Then you begin to think: why on earth cannot the system crunch the numbers first and then represent the results? At least I hate seeing empty window, don't know about you. I have no problem in how OSX handles this.
The DVD burning example is a bad one. You're comparing two different *encoders* there. I don't have a Mac Pro (yet) but this MBP 2.2GHz of mine will surely encode full DVD in 30 minutes, but I use DVD Studio Pro instead of iDVD. Sure, you have proven that Microsoft has included a faster encoder to its system, but you have said nothing about the image quality so the whole comparison might not be valid to begin with. There's a huge difference in encoding time whether you encode with "fast" or "better" mode.
Windows' backup is comparable to using CCC on the Mac side. It's a hard copy, yes, but it's hardly a backup system like Time Machine. Sure, there are lots of great backup software for Windows, but they cost a lot. As far as freebies are compared, Time Machine wins big time.
All benchmarks are worthless as long as they're just measuring some odd feature. A meaningful benchmark would be how long it takes to get some real-world job done; for example, if you have a DV-tape full of material and you want to edit a piece to a DVD, then by all means start with scratch and do the whole job in two different systems! Whichever gets the final DVD out faster is the winner of that benchmark.
(Naturally you have to get same results to the DVD as well, quality-wise and in substance. And you have to assume first edit takes longer than the second edit because you already know the material. So even this kind of benchmark is easily biased if done on same day...)
Leopard supports 2 years' old Macs. Vista? latest hardware with more rams for itself to eat.
I would just use leopard and simulate Xp as 'classic'.
Personally, I'd compare OSX and XP. Vista is fine when it works, but it still has many serious bugs and if any of them affect you, it can become a nightmare. That will hopefully change with SP1. For now, XP will be more stable and will run perfectly without needing the latest hardware and a ton of memory.
To me, OSX is better for just one reason when all is said and done. It's dependable - I can sit down at my mac, and know that it will wake up from sleep, it's extremely unlikely to crash, and I won't waste the first 20 minutes checking for updates, updating the virus checker, and running a rootkit scan if I want to do any online banking. I know that in 12 months time it'll be running about the same as it runs now, and I won't be looking for the install disk and downloading 100 drivers because windows has gotten old and slow and needs a complete rebuild. Basically, with windows I probably waste 10% or more of my time looking after the machine instead of actually using it.
A few comments on what others have written here:
- You can't really say OSX is more secure than vista, but you can say it's safer. The difference is that OSX security has barely been tested, very few viruses etc. have been made. Security flaws are regularly found and fixed, so it's far from totally secure. Windows on the other hand has a constant barrage of threats, so it's been heavily tested and fairs pretty well these days. Despite that, OSX is safer because of the lack of threats.
- expose, spaces, and the dashboard etc. are actually great if you have a use for them. I use all three fairly heavily. One hint - get a mouse with extra buttons (mine has the normal 3 plus thumb buttons that would be forwards/backwards in the web browser on a pc) and assign spaces and expose to the buttons. Vista actually has bad copies of dashboard (the desktop widgets - great, but the whole point was that you can hide them so they're not in the way!) and expose (in microsoft's version, the windows overlap so you can't see them, which makes it more of a gimmick than a tool)
- the interface in osx is better than the windows one I'd say, but it has its flaws.
- time machine is a great backup program for general home use. People comparing it with the vista one are missing how time machine works I think.
- It seems that osx has a lot less applications than windows, but they tend to be much better designed overall. Try comparing nero with toast - nero has 100s more features, which makes it horrible to use. And I've yet to find something I can't do in toast! (Actually, that sums up the whole osx vs. windows debate!)
I'm running both on my MacBook at the moment. I'm really impressed with Leopard but haven't really got to grips with Vista yet. It may just be me but it seems much less intuitive than XP and predecessors. I'll spend some time figuring it out but I much prefer OS X.
UI is probably the main reason i use OS X. With a click of my mouse I can move all windows off the screen, seperate all the windows to pick the one i want, or be in dashboard checking the weather forecast and some rss feeds i have to webcomics. That and in Leopard with quick look I can quickly browse a .pdf file for a certain line I need without having to launch Adobe Reader. Someone in here said if it came to sheer speed they would be using vista instead. I dual boot Leopard and Vista(business, which is 32-bit, so maybe not a sound argument) and Leopard is super fast. Safari launches after a fresh restart in <2 seconds, and iPhoto as well in <5 with about 4000 pictures. Than and Spotlight is really fast at finding anything you need without having to dig for it. The only area I have found where I use Vista instead of OS X, is for gaming. It's so much more fun and less frustrating to use OS X anywhere else.
I have had more initial issues with Leopard then I had with Vista. Mostly a few apps not working, that thankfully are not critical and they still run under Fusion/Windows XP. I have one business that has some issues with Vista, but if I turn off UAC it runs fine. This is more of the apps issue the Vistas, and since the app is almost 10 years old with no updates I will just have to make due. I use Leopard/XP at home, Vista on my work laptop and XP on my work desktop. I have not seen a BSOD or lockup on any one of them (including Tiger) in months. I have more issues with certain apps from time to time dieing out vs the OS's themselves. When I get on someones box that is having issues 9 x's out of 10 it's because they have gone some place then shouldn't, open every email attachment they get regardless whom it is from, don't run updates on their OS's or software, don't keep their AV updated ect ect. Then they moan how slow thier box it and how much something sucks, when in fact the majority of the problem is what sits in front of the box, not the box itself. Also Vista is a pretty big change UI wise for most PC users. Some of the moans I hear are the same I heard from my wife when I first installed OSX on her old G4. Things get moved around, and a lot of people are to lazy to go and find them or pick up a book and learn.
IMO the new stuff in Leopard is not what would sell me on getting a mac, though I love cover flow, the best stuff stuff that sold me was already there in Tiger and the Hardware. Personally I bought a MacPro because I would not be limited to 4gb of Ram. While not totally limited to this on the Win side you have your choice of XP 64 and Vista 64, and the latter is not ready from prime time IMO due to driver support ect. Plus on the Mac I can have my cake and eat it too with bootcamp/Fusion or Parallels and run what ever else besides OS X, plus with more then 4gbs of ram I can run it all at once, while running other power hungry apps, nice. Plus the case makes it great for running 4 drives, because one can never have enough space. Oh wait I am making this about the MP. For the non-prosumer (IMO ever one should own a MP ) IMO OS X is a nice deal. iLife should gives most consumers what they need without having to buy other apps, sure Vista came with some items similar but personally for now the iLife stuff just feels more intuitive and refined, which means less of my time explaining to some friend/family member how to do it. On the techy side in comes with Apache/PHP installed, there are is a vast array of open source stuff for it, the Unix back end takes me back to my hs/college years, seriously I go home, run past the wife, kid and dogs to run and hug my MacPro, I would spoon it if the hard aluminum sides were a little more supple.
Sorry for the rant.
Easy, tell your friends that you use it because you like it. That's it. Why does there have to be a reason? They want to use Vista/Xp? Fine, let them. You use something different.
Using an OS doesn't define you as a person. It's not a character definition. They're computers. They're tools. We use the tools to get things done or do things we like. That's it.
This nonsense of which computer or OS you use is just that, nonsense. What difference does it make? Want to get into an argument, start harping on what is wrong with what your friend uses or does. Might as well tell them "you're stupid". No one likes getting told they're stupid or doing something wrong or they made a bad choice....so why do it?
Just enjoy what you like and let them enjoy what they like. Zealots (fanbois to you younger people) are annoying no matter who they are.
I switched from PC to Mac a little over a year ago. I love that I can run XP/Vista on my computer if I need to, I found myself booting into windows less and less as time went on, and since I installed leopard, I havent even put windows back on my machine. I find mac to be more intuitive, "pretty", and works more reliably than Vista. The one way I can gauge how much I like Macs is I still have that "new computer" feeling even though its now been over a year. With all my previous computers, that element of new and fun went away much quicker. I am constantly finding new shortcuts and programs on my Mac that change how efficiently I use it.
Whilst all this has been going on, the original poster has scarpered by the looks of things.
To the man in question - have a look at the Apple site to learn all about OS X and determine for yourself the answer to your question.
You should find it's not a case of what can/can't do what, it's a question of which OS do you prefer to use?
I'm curious how many Vista bashers have actually used Vista for any reasonable amount of time..
I have two machines on my desk. One is a Core Duo iMac running Leopard, one is a Core 2 Duo Dell running Vista. Once I turned off UAC on Vista, it became a fine operating system. For those who don't know, UAC is the part of the security features for Vista that does all the annoying popup security questions (lampooned in the Mac v. PC commercial).
I really haven't had any problems with Vista. It has *never* crashed on me, and I use it for work all day everyday, running Visual Studio and other development tools. I leave the machine running for weeks on end without problem...
Leopard on the other hand has been quite a bit of trouble for me since I purchased it day one. One would think a clean install on a controlled set of hardware (iMac) would do the trick.. but not so. I don't know if there has been a day that Leopard hasn't locked up on me. I was having serious performance issues as a printer driver (that came with OS X) was running wild and using 60% of my CPU. Frontrow is glitchy (I have my Mac hooked up to my home theatre) and some other 3rd party apps have no been very stable for me.
While Leopard looks like it will be a great OS when the bugs are worked out, overall I am disappointed with the launch. It was obviously rushed out the door without sufficient testing.
Apple users tend to have a problem with group thought and blindly overlook any flaws with the products they purchase. I love my Mac, I love my iPhone, etc.. BUT they are not perfect by a long shot.