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

Lil Chillbil

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 30, 2012
1,322
95
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
 

TSE

macrumors 68040
Jun 25, 2007
3,035
642
St. Paul, Minnesota
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?
 

craigsharp

macrumors regular
Aug 2, 2008
140
3
Oklahoma
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.
 

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,062
1,086
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.
 

drjarv05

macrumors newbie
Jan 16, 2011
11
0
Louisville, KY
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. :)
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,530
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
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.
 

nickn

macrumors 6502
Jun 17, 2011
386
0
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.
 

jbarley

macrumors 68040
Jul 1, 2006
3,827
1,673
Vancouver Island
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.
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?
 

eyoungren

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
21,708
14,031
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
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.
 

Hastings101

macrumors 68020
Jun 22, 2010
2,141
778
K
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).
 

Ariii

macrumors 6502a
Jan 26, 2012
682
5
Chicago
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.

OS X wasn't worth using till Tiger in my opinion. Live search was game changing.
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.
 

Jethryn Freyman

macrumors 68020
Aug 9, 2007
2,333
2
Australia
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...
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,530
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
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?
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.
 

SkyBell

macrumors 604
Sep 7, 2006
6,564
133
Texas, unfortunately.
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.
 

Ariii

macrumors 6502a
Jan 26, 2012
682
5
Chicago
Quick question: How much are the OSX Tiger disks worth?

And true, Tiger was probably the best :)
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.
 

SuperJudge

macrumors 6502
Apr 2, 2008
449
4
The Triangle, NC
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?
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.
 

alexreich

macrumors 6502a
Jan 26, 2011
626
1
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.