Wasn't there something special about Tiger that just feels missing in Leopard?

[nick9191]

In terms of speed, Leopard is slower than Tiger because its a 32/64 bit hybrid.

Tiger was 32 bit with some limited 64 bit support, however with Leopard they brought 64 bit up through Cocoa. It is this hybridity that bogs down Leopard. Snow Leopard, kernel and all will be all 64 bit so you should see some nice performance and stability increases.

The GUI, I love it as it is. Looks really professional and really clean, not as Flashy as Vista but far more functional and far more consistent. There were some rumours about a new interface codenamed marble which sounds promising.

 

[Crown]

So I told him what I felt about the UI (before you wrote that out, sorry)

Bertrand-

Another thing I forgot to mention before is that I think it may be the appearance that might contribute to the lack of the "rock-solid" feeling. I think for the most part in Tiger, the aqua appearance was finally perfect (I understand the eliminated brushed metal) but the dock, menu bar, buttons, scrolls, kinda all came together and were coordinated in the in the best way possible since the beginning of Mac OS X. I think that by changing the appearance so much in Leopard, you kinda threw us veteran Mac users off a bit. I mean why not give the users some options in terms of appearance? I understand the need to look unified but if we could get the old tiger appearance back, maybe it would give some of that secure feeling back.

Thanks again,
David

On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:43 AM, Bertrand Serlet wrote:

We try to stay away from options because if you make a system with one path rather than two paths you put all your energy in designing the best path rather than divide your energy in two (or worse divide it unevenly and have one mediocre alternative).
Also for the user its simpler without a choice.

For any one preference this is not a big deal, but when multiplied by a thousand, you create a mess.

-- Bertrand

Wow...the guy responded at 1:43 in the morning? thats some dedication.

 

[Eric S.]

Mac OS X "Tiger" had something really special- it was this indescribable feeling of stability that made it such an incredible OS to use.

I bet that 10.5.6 is a lot more stable than 10.4.6 was.

Has anybody who purchased Leopard, gone back to Tiger?

I'm considering it with my Power Mac G4. I originally installed it in order to get a feel for Leopard and try out its features. Now I have two Macbooks with Leopard that I didn't have then, so I could move back to Tiger on the PM, which is a more natural OS for it and offers Classic mode. The only thing I would really miss would be Time Machine.

One thing about moving back a step in OS level, though, is that updates to the earlier OS will end sooner. Right now Tiger gets security updates only, and if Apple's historical pattern holds those will stop when Snow Leopard comes out.

So it seems like he really does care, and it does give me some satisfaction that the folks at apple care what I have to say.

He cares about giving you a warm fuzzy feeling. If 17,000 complaints about dropping Firewire on the Macbook won't change Apple's development plans (which I don't believe they will), then one letter of vague unease about the feel of the OS, no matter how well-intentioned, will not have any concrete results either.

 

[apfhex]

I think Leopard is all-around better than Tiger, but Tiger—10.4.11—is rock solid and has a very polished feeling, and is the kind of OS that will last a lot of people a long time (I have it on my PBG4 and use it at work on a G5). It's kind of unfair since Leopard's only at 10.5.6. With Snow Leopard around the corner it won't be "going to 11" but I think very likely that Snow Leopard will end up surpassing 10.4.11 and perhaps replicate that certain feeling.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Tiger used to fetch me my slippers. Leopard looks at me like, you have got to be kidding.