Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OS X lineup which one realy was the most advanced operating system for its time

Lil Chillbil

Lil Chillbil

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 30, 2012
1,335
111
California
lets discuss which os x compared to pc operating system of its day realy made the biggest leap forward
comparing
cheetah and windows 2000
puma and windows 2000
jaguar and windows me
panther and windows xp
tiger and windows xp
leopard and windows vista
snow leopard and windows 7
lion and windows 7

i'll post my opinion once this flame war starts burning
 
Tiger was probably the best Mac OS X Version for it's time.

And the fact that you think this will turn into a flame war itself is laughable. Why would you want a flame war, in the first place?
 
For me panther was leaps and bounds over XP. My first Mac back in 2004 was a 12" PowerBook G4 with Panther. For me Exposé was the best feature that separated the two, among other things.
 
That graph isn't really right. Windows XP and Cheetah shipped at the same time. Windows XP and Mac OS X were competitors for all versions up until Leopard.
 
I would say that Tiger was the best in it's time. Would had said Leopard but it was so sluggish on my mac. So that would be my thought. :)
 
Comparing OSX to Windows 2000 isn't a really good comparison, they weren't intended for the same market, or users. Totally different animals.

For me, its 10.5 is the best.

10.7 is a mess.
 
I would also say Tiger was the best for its time. Even to this day it is still pretty good. Overall the absolute best OS was 10.6 though. Unfortunately Apple had to totally ruin everything with 10.7, so I am done with Apple now. I guess I will run my C2D mini to the end with 10.6, and then move on to a DIY win7/ Ubuntu machine.
 
goMac said:
That graph isn't really right. Windows XP and Cheetah shipped at the same time. Windows XP and Mac OS X were competitors for all versions up until Leopard.
Click to expand...
Anybody else find it strange that XP still enjoys a large user base, still supported by Microsoft, in fact still supported by Apple, while Cheetah is but an unsupported blip in the distant past?
 
Panther was extremely boring. But between Jaguar and Tiger it was the most stable on my machines (including my Macs at work).

Tiger was great feature wise, but hideously unstable on my work Macs. Finder was always crashing which forced me to reset my open windows every time. Perhaps this was because we work over a network, but I'm really not a Tiger fan any more.

Leopard has restored my faith. It's solid and fast on both my Macs at home and work and I have had zero stability issues.

As to Windows, it's ugly, but I much prefer Windows 2000 to XP. That's because we have Appletalk enabled printers at work and the W2K machines can print to them because Microsoft included Appletalk printing. XP doesn't have that.

XP is always doing funny things too that just drives me insane. At least I've had very little trouble with the W2K machines at work. Win7 has been great too. We have two machines running Win7 and that's been stable and dependable.

But between those and OSX, I prefer Leopard all around.
 
I think Tiger was probably the best for its time. It was so much better than 2000/XP and any other version of OS X that came before it (I haven't owned a Mac that ran anything earlier than Tiger but in my limited experience Panther and earlier were awful).
 
I'd say Public Beta if that's an option. Well, comparing the two is really a lot different. Microsoft releases an OS one time and then lets you update it and sticks with it for a couple years, with XP as an exception. People usually consider OS X 10.0 and 10.1, etc. generally the same OS, but not Windows 2000 and XP, or Vista and Windows 7. You might say what time Apple OS's were considered the most advanced, but it's hard to compare the individual releases. Well, I think at Public Beta it was considered the most advanced for it's time. It's sad to see that there's not much of Aqua in the later versions, it looked really nice. The 3D Dock in Leopard along with some of the elements of the UI were great, but not really that much ahead of its time. I'd say Tiger might be the most advanced OS for its time if not Public Beta, it was a huge step ahead.

QuarterSwede said:
OS X wasn't worth using till Tiger in my opinion. Live search was game changing.
Click to expand...

I don't know, Sherlock loaded a lot faster for me and I liked it more. But it was pretty great for a lot of people.
 
10.5. Seen me through the most usage on the most computers and for the longest time after its' release. Run it on a Core i5 MBP and a 466MHz G4 tower.

10.6 is better again, but not as much of a step.

Lion I like now that I've used it for a bit, got it set up how I want it, turned off some annoying features...
 
jbarley said:
Anybody else find it strange that XP still enjoys a large user base, still supported by Microsoft, in fact still supported by Apple, while Cheetah is but an unsupported blip in the distant past?
Click to expand...

The thing is, Apple's computer business is VERY small, less than 10% of the market. They've failed terribly to expand that share, most of their money comes from iPhones and iPads.


Windows XP stays supported because it has a massive userbase, most of who will upgrade to Windows 7.

Apple has a very small users base, and Apple needs to force users to upgrade to make money.
 
Tiger is when OS X hit the jackpot, IMO. It's the only version of OS X I use to this day. The previous versions were all good, but Tiger combined all of those advancements, added a few amazing ones of its own and piled it on top of rock-hard stability and ease of use.
 
my fav is still beos 4.5...why didn't they sell to apple when they had the chance :-(

picture.php
 
Liquinn said:
Quick question: How much are the OSX Tiger disks worth?

And true, Tiger was probably the best :)
Click to expand...

You can sell a Tiger disk, usually, for about $70. Some people sell it for super-cheap, though, after seeing that Lion and Snow Leopard are about $30.
 
jbarley said:
Anybody else find it strange that XP still enjoys a large user base, still supported by Microsoft, in fact still supported by Apple, while Cheetah is but an unsupported blip in the distant past?
Click to expand...

Not at all. If you had ever tried to use Cheetah as your main OS you would know why this is the case. OS X was really rough around the edges until Jaguar and didn't fully hit its stride until Tiger.

I'll throw in my two cents and say that Leopard was the one that was most advanced for its time. Time Machine is yet to be matched for features in the Windows world and has yet to be matched for usability in the POSIX world as a whole. The fact that is was the first fully POSIX compliant OS I could actually afford to buy without work picking up the bill might be an influential component of it, too.
 
Tiger ran the best on pretty much anything. Though when comparing OSX/Windows I would say that Leopard had a hell of an advantage over Vista. Vista f#(&ing sucked on everything, and Leopard ran on PPC/Intel pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back