Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What version of the Mac OS did you enjoy the most?

Which Mac OS version did you enjoy the most?

  • 1-5

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • System 6

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • System 7

    Votes: 9 6.0%

  • Mac OS 8

    Votes: 5 3.3%

  • Mac OS 9

    Votes: 5 3.3%

  • Cheetah

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Puma

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Jaguar

    Votes: 4 2.7%

  • Panther

    Votes: 10 6.7%

  • Tiger

    Votes: 42 28.0%

  • Leopard

    Votes: 73 48.7%
  • Total voters
    150
Tiger was the OS that came on my first mac and I coming from Windows XP it was heaven (I know some people love XP but I loathe it). Just upgraded my iBook to Leopard last night and while it seemed jerky last night it seems to have settled down now.

First impressions: I preferred Tiger's Finder but I do like the little lights under apps in the dock :p Not very impressed with the transparent menu bar, having an app full screen doesn't look clean anymore (Haven't really used it for more than internet yet)
 
instaxgirl said:
Tiger was the OS that came on my first mac and I coming from Windows XP it was heaven (I know some people love XP but I loathe it). Just upgraded my iBook to Leopard last night and while it seemed jerky last night it seems to have settled down now.

First impressions: I preferred Tiger's Finder but I do like the little lights under apps in the dock :p Not very impressed with the transparent menu bar, having an app full screen doesn't look clean anymore (Haven't really used it for more than internet yet)
Click to expand...

Heaven is right! Jumping to Leopard was not nearly the excitement that Tiger was...
 
Kilamite said:
Tiger.

While Leopard feels like a Mac a wee bit, Tiger really feels like a Mac. Don't ask why, cos I can't explain it..
Click to expand...
I know what you mean!

In Leopard, I use displaperture to get rounded corners and I use the aqua desktop images to get that old mac feel.

But I still prefer all the features of Leopard.
 
wrldwzrd89 said:
Absolutely. And Puma, Cheetah, Jaguar, and Panther too... but only when they were the latest version of Mac OS X.

EDIT: That sounded wrong, I meant: Absolutely did love Tiger when it came out.
Click to expand...

Outstanding! I have absolutely no idea why I feel a need to "celebrate" Tiger - 'cause I'm certainly waiting with great expectations for Snow Leopard! But I have many fond memories of Tiger....:cool:
 
Tiger all the way, it's UI was getting a bit dated, but it was still miles ahead of Windows at the time. It was the OS that made me want to switch, and made me fall in love with the OSX86 project.
 
Schtumple said:
Tiger all the way, it's UI was getting a bit dated, but it was still miles ahead of Windows at the time. It was the OS that made me want to switch, and made me fall in love with the OSX86 project.
Click to expand...

so true!!! it made me turn my back on windows for real!
 
agl82 said:
No PowerPC processors were NOT very good for their time. Intel was wiping the floor with them in terms of speed and performance. Apple tried to glaze over this fact saying that a G3 running at 233MHz was as fast as a Pentium running at twice the speed or some such nonsense. It was not true then and it isn't true now. IBM and Motorola couldn't match Intel for increases in clock speed or caching, and Apple finally relented in 2005 with the Intel transition because the PowerPC roadmap was a joke.

The reason that Mac OS X still runs well on PowerPC's is because they still make up a decent percentage of Apple's marketshare.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

I'm a Mac user, but the reality distortion field doesn't work on me.
Click to expand...
That market share link is quite interesting, but I can't accept your statement about the G3 versus the Intel processors of the time without some proof. My understanding was that the PPC G3 was quite good, at least in terms of power efficiency, making it excellent as a notebook CPU. The PowerPC G4, on the other hand, wasn't so great. The PPC G5 was even worse in this regard, despite its unique advantages. My personal opinion on why Apple went Intel when they did is this: Apple was in a bind. They couldn't find a way to get the G5 in a notebook, and the G4s were running way too hot for people's liking as it was. They realized that the Core series of CPUs was a massive breakthrough for Intel, in terms of both performance and power efficiency, compared to the Pentium 4... and the rest is history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back