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

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by Lil Chillbil, Jun 9, 2012.

  1. Lil Chillbil macrumors 65816

    Lil Chillbil

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #1
    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
     
  2. TSE macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    #2
    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?
     
  3. Lil Chillbil thread starter macrumors 65816

    Lil Chillbil

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #3
    it was just kind of a playful saying were all macs here
     
  4. craigsharp macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    #4
    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.
     
  5. QuarterSwede macrumors G3

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #5
    OS X wasn't worth using till Tiger in my opinion. Live search was game changing.
     
  6. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #6
    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.
     
  7. TacticalDesire macrumors 68020

    TacticalDesire

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Michigan
  8. drjarv05 macrumors newbie

    drjarv05

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    #8
    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. :)
     
  9. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Lil Chillbil thread starter macrumors 65816

    Lil Chillbil

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #10
    cheetah was way ahead of its time in the design that started it all in my opinion
     
  11. nickn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    #11
    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.
     
  12. jbarley macrumors 68040

    jbarley

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Location:
    Vancouver Island
    #12
    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?
     
  13. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
    #13
    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.
     
  14. Hastings101 macrumors 68020

    Hastings101

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Location:
    K
    #14
    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).
     
  15. Ariii macrumors 6502a

    Ariii

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Location:
    Chicago
    #15
    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.

    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.
     
  16. Jethryn Freyman macrumors 68020

    Jethryn Freyman

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #16
    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...
     
  17. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #17
    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.
     
  18. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #18
    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.
     
  19. tom vilsack macrumors 68000

    tom vilsack

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    Location:
    ladner cdn
    #19
    my fav is still beos 4.5...why didn't they sell to apple when they had the chance :-(

    [​IMG]
     
  20. keysersoze macrumors 68000

    keysersoze

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    NH
    #21

    I'd say 10.5 as well.
     
  21. Liquinn Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #22
    Quick question: How much are the OSX Tiger disks worth?

    And true, Tiger was probably the best :)
     
  22. Ariii macrumors 6502a

    Ariii

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Location:
    Chicago
    #23
    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.
     
  23. SuperJudge macrumors 6502

    SuperJudge

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Location:
    The Triangle, NC
    #24
    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.
     
  24. alexreich macrumors 6502a

    alexreich

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page