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.aristotle1990 said:I think that it's mainly 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...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.
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 minearistotle1990 said:tiger as #3?!!? are you serious?!?! tiger is not that big of a deal.
More software doesn't at all mean better software.dontmatter said:Who wins:
Apple 3rd party software vs. MS third party software: MS third party software.
More hardware sales doesn't mean better hardware.dontmatter said:Apple vs. Dell: DELL
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 flyGodBless 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?
But QuickTime 7 came out the morning of the day that Tiger was released and Tiger made the list but QuickTime didn't.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
So if QuickTime 7 was out too late for this batch, it sure ought to appear in the 2006 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.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?