The 100 Best Products of 2005 (#3 - OS X 10.4 Tiger)


24C

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2004
519
0
dejo said:
Shouldn't we wait for 2005 to end first?
Do you know something we don't?:D I reckon it'll be about the end of 2005 by the time they fix the bugs in Tiger...should be #2 by then in the PCW chart.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
Apple's FileMaker Pro made the list too. Here's the full ranked list:

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,120763,pg,12,00.asp

Of note:

#1 Firefox
#2 Gmail
#3 OS X Tiger
#16 Google
#26 Ubuntu Linux
#28 Thunderbird
#34 iTunes
#47 Windows Media Player
#75 Mac Mini
#76 Google Desktop Search
#78 iPod Photo
#80 FileMaker Pro 7
#86 iTunes Music Player
#89 Copernic Desktop Search

A good day for Apple (6 winners), Google (3 winners), and Mozilla (2 winners)... three organizations I suspect MS is worried about. Not so good for MS... they only have 1 product listed, at #47.

EDIT: Added Ubuntu Linux and Copernic Desktop Search... since they fit the theme of "MS worries."

I'm sure many of us here use the top 3 :) I do. Firefox is only a test platform for me since I like Safari, but I do use it.
 

iJaz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 16, 2004
540
0
It also seems like PCmag are quite impressed with the whole Mac line, here!
 

aristotle1990

macrumors newbie
May 17, 2005
29
0
come on...

tiger as #3?!!? are you serious?!?! tiger is not that big of a deal. you've got better searches and some cute widgets. big whoop. tiger's not changing the way anyone uses a computer; it's got some pretty cool features, but it's a long shot from the #3 spot here, especially considering all of the really cool products in 2005 that didn't make it onto the list. I think that it's mainly the whole aura of coolness surrounding tiger and the MASSIVE hype that prompted pcmag to do this.
 

freiheit

macrumors 6502a
Jul 20, 2004
643
90
California
It's also nice to be able to say that the #1 product of the year (Firefox) and #28 (Thunderbird) are available for MacOS X. Without apps that people (switchers) might actually use, having Tiger at the #3 spot would be a hollow victory. But having the #1 product working on it makes it much sweeter.
 

freiheit

macrumors 6502a
Jul 20, 2004
643
90
California
aristotle1990 said:
I think that it's mainly the... MASSIVE hype that prompted pcmag to do this.
Well, that's the same thing that got Windows into the top 3 every year before. Certainly Windows 98 was not deserving of such praise -- I ran it, I know. But Tiger, on top of all the great features already in OSX, is a big deal. I'm not sure, but I doubt PC Mag paid any attention to Panther, which WAS a big deal (Expose is being mimicked by Windows developers left and right -- it's an innovative, useful feature) so putting Tiger in at #3 may be partially making up for ignoring Panther but yeah, there are some good things in Tiger that make it worthy at least of being on the top 100 list.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Mar 4, 2003
4,768
2,792
aristotle1990 said:
tiger as #3?!!? are you serious?!?! tiger is not that big of a deal. you've got better searches and some cute widgets. big whoop. tiger's not changing the way anyone uses a computer; it's got some pretty cool features, but it's a long shot from the #3 spot here, especially considering all of the really cool products in 2005 that didn't make it onto the list. I think that it's mainly the whole aura of coolness surrounding tiger and the MASSIVE hype that prompted pcmag to do this.
Maybe you're ranking by different criteria than they are-- look at one and two: Mozilla and Gmail. Wouldn't call either of those new or revolutionary...

Considering how far ahead they'd have to test in order to meet a late May deadline, they probably had an advanced copy of the software at best. Likely hadn't seen Tiger when they wrote this up.

When decisions are being made in March/April about what the best products of the year are, one is a browser and one is webmail, it really isn't worth getting too hot and bothered about.

Probably not worth much flag waving over either...
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
aristotle1990 said:
tiger as #3?!!? are you serious?!?! tiger is not that big of a deal.
Tiger is of course much more--both on the surface and underneath--than you listed. Whether it's worth the upgrade from the Excellent Panther OS is a decision each person must make for themselves. Your answer to that may not be the same as mine ;)

But when PC World considers Tiger a Best Product, they're not just looking at Tiger vs. Panther, they're looking at Tiger as a whole product. Tiger is more than just the changes: everything Panther does is in Tiger too :)

And as Operating Systems go, it's hard to find anything that can touch Tiger. It's nice that PC World recognizes that.
 

Stella

macrumors G3
Apr 21, 2003
8,272
4,635
Canada
Eclipse would be good...

.. if they could sort out the SWT bug...

... does anyone know why eclipse was implemented using carbon instead of native?
 
Who wins:

Apple vs. Mircosoft: Apple!
Apple 3rd party software vs. MS third party software: MS third party software.
Apple vs. Dell: DELL

So is apple a software or a hardware company? And is it the OS or the third party that matters?

Or is any of this stuff worthwhile in the absolute least, at ALL?

NO.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
dontmatter said:
Who wins:

Apple 3rd party software vs. MS third party software: MS third party software.
More software doesn't at all mean better software.

dontmatter said:
Apple vs. Dell: DELL
More hardware sales doesn't mean better hardware.

You say Apple wins vs. Microsoft but remember by your standards more is better and that means Microsoft wins because they sell a higher quantity of products. You should know that quality always beats quantity. The few and far in-between have a BMW just as the few and far in-between have OS X. By no means does this mean that Apple and BMW lose because most people don't use their products.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
Did somebody see a serious problem with Windows Media Player being on that list? Where is QuickTime 7? It has H.264, totally revised interface and features, etc. What makes Windows Media Player any different now in 2005 than what it was in 2001 when XP was released? Why are old unrevised products making the list?
 

swheeler

macrumors member
May 30, 2005
42
0
It seems like Safari had a lot of Firefox's features first, but they don't mention it once in the article on Firefox, even when discussing other non-IE browsers.
 

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,091
3,382
Twin Cities Minnesota
like the first poster stated, a little early..

if it were up to the editor, everyone would be selling 2007 cars at this point in time. The funny thing is, there are a few 2006 models going on the market soon enough!!
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
GodBless said:
Did somebody see a serious problem with Windows Media Player being on that list? Where is QuickTime 7? It has H.264, totally revised interface and features, etc. What makes Windows Media Player any different now in 2005 than what it was in 2001 when XP was released? Why are old unrevised products making the list?
I'd say the "2005" headline simply is because that's when it's published, and calling it the Best of 2004 right now would not fly :D

So if QuickTime 7 was out too late for this batch, it sure ought to appear in the 2006 list!
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
nagromme said:
I'd say the "2005" headline simply is because that's when it's published, and calling it the Best of 2004 right now would not fly :D

So if QuickTime 7 was out too late for this batch, it sure ought to appear in the 2006 list!
But QuickTime 7 came out the morning of the day that Tiger was released and Tiger made the list but QuickTime didn't.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
I still think QT7 lost out for its newness, though. It wasn't on the radar long enough. (In fact, it's not even out for PC yet--which will make it a better candidate.)

Tiger had a lot more advance awareness/mindshare than QT7 did.
 

dubbz

macrumors 68020
Sep 3, 2003
2,284
0
Alta, Norway
GodBless said:
What makes Windows Media Player any different now in 2005 than what it was in 2001 when XP was released? Why are old unrevised products making the list?
Windows Media Player 10, which was mentioned in the article, was released this year (or maybe it was late 2004, I don't remember). Windows XP includes Windows Media Player 9.

Now, if if it's worthy of a place in the #100 is another matter... Personally, I'm not particularly found of WMP, but alot of Windows users seem to like it, and supposedly WMP 10 improves a great deal upon WMP 9.

Edit: And I'm glad to see Firefox at #1. It's well deserved.