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

Who is still using tiger, and who is using leopard!!

Do you use leopard, or Tiger?

  • Leopard

    Votes: 159 71.6%

  • Tiger

    Votes: 63 28.4%
  • Total voters
    222
Ewww, who's still running Tiger? An operating system released almost 3 years ago? :p

Actually, it seems that Steve Jobs himself still uses Tiger. At least that's what I could tell from the header of the recent e-mail I got from what appears to be Steve Jobs. ;)

As for me, I've upgraded both of my Macs to Leopard, an iBook and a MacBook Pro. Luckily, I didn't have any of the issues that people have faced. :)
 
Tiger. Leopard is too expensive to buy. (I make about $50 in allowance a year.) And even if I could afford it, I don't think I would buy it. It's still unstable and a lot of apps don't work with it, etc.
 
Well I have Leopard installed on my macbook but have a bootable Tiger image on an external hard drive that I am keeping updated ;)

Leopard I was very positive at the start :), then very quickly I was :mad::mad::mad: about this freezing problem however in the last 3 weeks all my issues seem to have gone :eek:. Loving quick look and icon previews of files like PDF's would find it very hard to go back now.
 
i am using Leopard on my only mac. i assume the majority of the sample have updated to Leopard because this is a mac forum.

at MacWorld 2008 Steve Jobs told us that Apple has delivered over 5 million copies of Leopard in the first 3 months. This resulted in almost 20% of the Mac OS X install base has upgraded to Leopard. "This is unprecedented in the fist 90 days for both us (Apple)... and the industry".

Screencapture 2.jpg
 
I'm using an old but rocksolid version of Filemaker Pro on a daily basis. It stil runs under classic and I don't want to upgrade and go through all the debugging of my databases so I'll stick with tiger.
 
Leopard here, it went on my MB the moment it was released. I feel like the luckiest person in the world when I read this forum as I've had no problems with it at all. :)
 
Biggest problem with the poll is that you didn't specify whether people who were running Leopard could ever have run Tiger to begin with. It's pretty much impossible to install Tiger to your Mac (without external disks from Apple) if your Mac shipped with Tiger. As a result, many (most?) folks who vote Leopard wouldn't be able to run Tiger if they wanted to, which throws the issue of choice out the window.

Here's a way you could have addressed that:

* Leopard (computer shipped with Leopard)
* Leopard (computer shipped with Tiger)
* Tiger

That said, I'm running Tiger, and have no plans to downgrade to Leopard. It's basically OS X's Vista, as far as I'm concerned. I'll probably skip it all-together for 10.6. I'm on a Macbook, which is more than enough for Leopard, but I've got zero desire to run a bloated OS while doing exactly the same stuff I did on the sleek OS; this is why I refused to downgrade to Vista from XP, and why I switched from XP to Tiger to begin with. Microsoft dropped the ball, and apparently, so did Apple. Oh well; XP and Tiger are plenty fine for me, and loads of other folks.
 
heatmiser said:
Biggest problem with the poll is that you didn't specify whether people who were running Leopard could ever have run Tiger to begin with. It's pretty much impossible to install Tiger to your Mac (without external disks from Apple) if your Mac shipped with Tiger. As a result, many (most?) folks who vote Leopard wouldn't be able to run Tiger if they wanted to, which throws the issue of choice out the window. :D

Here's a way you could have addressed that:

* Leopard (computer shipped with Leopard)
* Leopard (computer shipped with Tiger)
* Tiger

That said, I'm running Tiger, and have no plans to switch to Leopard.
Click to expand...
You've got a valid point here -- my MacBook Pro came with Tiger pre-installed with a Leopard CPU drop-in installation disc which I installed as soon as I took the MacBook Pro out of the box and made sure it was fully functional.

There are a few improvements I've noticed in Leopard vs. Tiger that make me want to stick with Leopard and make it worth using:

  • Quicklook.
  • Faster Spotlight.
  • A 'cleaner' user interface.
  • AirPort menu item works a lot better.
  • New Terminal functions with tabs, themes, etc.
  • Better memory management.
  • Application launch times are faster.
  • Runs better on Intel Macs than Tiger does.
 
I was sort of forced to upgrade to Leopard as the HD on my MB was having real probs with certain issues with the KeyChain, so I decided to upgrade the HD myself in Thailand at Xmas, and I got a copy of Leopard and installed that, now I am eagerly waiting for 10.5.2 to resolve certain issues with that.

About my original MB disks, the first one has a scratch or something so it does not go all the way through install, which really annoys me as I am very careful with my CDs.
 
Leopard: using a tiger machine feels fine after using leopard... the BIG problem with tiger, is not being able to scroll inactive windows!


(scrolling inactive windows, and stacks are my favorite leopard features)
 
bigandy said:
yup.

Leopard's improvements (except spaces) aren't used enough yet, and it's caused a few issues for me with HD video, and Adobe CS3.

Going to drop it back down mid Feb. Just need a little free time.
Click to expand...

What's the issue using Adobe CS3 under Leopard?
 
OldCorpse said:
Next, there are plenty of bugs compared to 10.4.11 - not surprising really in a new OS, so that's not knocking Leopard specifically, but it means delayed acceptance from those who like stability. Still, trouble with airport and so many other bugs just scare me away.

Next, Leopard is plain and simple a PIG. For the first time, an OS X upgrade is slower than the previous one. All others (Jaguar, Panther, Tiger) were faster than their predecessor on older machines, and Leopard is actually slower. Both my macs are PPCs - 1.5Ghz and 1.33Ghz (well within Leopard requirements), and I've read consistent reports of Leopard being slower than Tiger on those systems.
Click to expand...

I just switched back to Tiger on my 1.33GHz iBook a week ago. I love the look of Leopard, and enjoyed many of its features, but Leopard bogged my iBook down so ridiculously badly that I would even beachball on more than a couple Safari tabs open at once (this with 1.5 GB of RAM). My Cube w/Panther felt like it was running circles around my iBook w/Leopard. I won't list off the issues I had with Leopard over a two month period for fear of this post becoming an official rant, but I'll just say this:

The intel Leopard and PPC Leopard seem to be completely different beasts. I use Leopard on a Macbook with virtually no issues, but on my iBook (and my friend's Powerbook) it was a nightmare, complete with horrible bugs and crashes. The Leopard on my iBook felt like a bad port of the Leopard on the Macbook.
 
Temporarily running 10.3.9 on both my PowerBooks, but will likely soon be moving to Leopard for my 1.33GHz PowerBook.

Panther's nice. Probably the most tolerable OS X lower than Tiger. I've run 10.2 and the lack of Software reminds me of why people resented Macs so much back in the day. Nobody wrote for them!

Yay Panther!
 
Still using Tiger. I had hoped to buy buy Leopard with a student discount but then Apple slashed the discount to almost non-existant. My college bookstore doesn't have Leopard (I had hoped that they, like some other schools, might have the $69 copies). I plan to get Leopard in the next 4 months, though.
 
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