So CS2 doesnt work in Leopard? My GF had the cd, so I installed and ran it without any problems so far. I only use it like once a week though. I love Leopard. I still have Tiger to boot off of on my ex HD just incase there's a program I really need to use that doesnt in Leopard, but I havent even ran it since I upgraded. I dont know how people can say Leopard is slower than Tiger, only thing thats slower is the animations, everything else runs twice as fast. Only hiccup I ran into was that Firefox crashes allot for me, but thats about it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why do some people prefer Tiger over Leopard?
- Thread starter asdfTT123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
panzer06
Contributor
According to Adobe there are likely items that will come up and they are not going fix them.
http://www.adobe.com/support/products/pdfs/leopardsupport.pdf
Cheers,
Oh, you beat me to it... =]
I can't believe you people are this completely caught up with yourselves when it comes to Leopards aesthetics. Yeah, the menu bar is ugly, but it doesn't take away from the functionality. If it bothers you that bad, change it! The dock? Yeah, that can change too. Maybe next time you should take the time to Google some of these things and figure them out for yourself rather than coming here and complaining. Also, if your Mac is having such a hard time running with Leopard's "monster footprint", then I think it may be time to upgrade something about your hardware.
kaiwai
macrumors 6502a
clevin
macrumors G3
yes, Im sitting here and using Tiger.
Im not interested in forced upgrade
you want backup system and bootcamp? upgrade to 10.5
you want photoshop working? buy CS3.
total bs.
kaiwai
macrumors 6502a
I mean, being shafted by Adobe. People seem to be more than happy to bend over and accommodate the '**** you!" attitude which Adobe has adopted when it comes to supporting the latest OS. Why release an update when you can screw an upgrade out of the customer. Sounds very Quark'ish if you ask me.
Here's the deal:
I have a 1999 iMac DV (400mhz, 512 ram), and I have used every single version of OS X on it, all on launch day. Cheetah & Puma were total crap. Jaguar was a huge improvement and Panther was almost perfect. It's now running Tiger (10.4.11) and everything works at almost OS 9 speed. Sure, features that rely on special effects, like dock magnification, expose and itunes cover flow run a little slow, but you expect that kind of performance out of a '99 mac with a measly 8 MB graphics chip.
My other machine is a Mid-2007 Macbook, with a C2D 2.16 & 1 Gig of Ram. Tiger used to run SO FAST on it. Even at a time when my 160 Gig hard drive had a mere 900 MB of free space, because of all the programs i installed and my imovies and my gigantic itunes library, tiger NEVER missed a beat.
Since i downgraded to Leopard, the animations system wide have become choppy, everything takes twice the time to load, applications take FOREVER to terminate (waiting 25 secs for itunes to quit is for the birds). I cry a little bit inside during the boot process which now takes almost 1:40 (tiger ~0:30) and that thing is just plain UGLY. I can understand their decision to drop support for G3 and older G4 macs, but when Leopard runs ****** on a 7-month old mac then we have a HUGE problem.
On top of that, today i had my first kernel panic since 10.1!!!!! It occurred during shutdown. Way to go Apple! I provide the screenshot just for the expression on Homer's face 🙂
Oh, and by the way, whatever happened to the "Apple elegance"? It seems to be going downhill lately, for both hardware and software. The entire color scheme seems like a bad Aqua skin implementation for windows or Linux desktops (no offence to linux users, as i am one myself). It's way too dark and depressing to look at. Combined with the ugly print of my desktop background on the menubar, it makes some really bad Feng shui.
I'm not biased against leopard. It has some really nice touches that i'd like to have in tiger, like instant results when using spotlight, or the little lock next to secure networks on the airport menu, or even time machine, even though i believe that it's not executed in the most efficient way. EDIT: Spaces is convenient as well.
I know that it takes approximately 5 seconds to change the menu bar (and the dock) back to something usable, but why do i have to bother fixing something that shouldn't have been broken in the first place?Everybody hates the stupid transparency effect, but they still don't offer a gui implementation of the "OFF" command, and they advertise it as a feature that is going to increase productivity. Bullocks....
For every step forward they took, they jumped three steps backwards.
Sorry for my bad English, not my primary language.
panzer06
Contributor
Combine these issues with no real reason to upgrade and you have many great reasons to stay with Tiger.
All Apple had to do is make bootcamp and a streamlined timemachine available on Tiger and Leopard is no more.
I understand the need to get more revenue from a new OS every couple of years but those of us who wish to continue using what works should be rewarded by some continued support on the prior version (not forever but for some reasonable timeframe) by giving us a few addl features without destroying what works.
Cheers,
Someone said it a few weeks ago here, but it bears repeating: regardless of Apple's claims to the contrary, they truly were scared of losing the eye-candy race with Vista. It's little wonder so many useless graphics were stuffed into Leopard as they delayed its release over and over again. Well, congratulations, Apple. You've got your Vista.
Your English is great, and this post is a great description of the unnecessary performance hit so many take when going from Tiger to Leopard. The more I read these forums, the stronger the rush of déjà vu. There is very little difference between the XP to Vista complaints and the Tiger to Leopard complaints; both corporations forced buggy "upgrades" on their userbases, and the people using the older OSes see little reason to switch.
angelodmhl said:
Your English is great, and this post is a great description of the unnecessary performance hit so many take when going from Tiger to Leopard. The more I read these forums, the stronger the rush of déjà vu. There is very little difference between the XP to Vista complaints and the Tiger to Leopard complaints; both corporations forced buggy "upgrades" on their userbases, and the people using the older OSes see little reason to switch.
CalBoy
macrumors 604
I object to this portion. How exactly did Apple release buggy upgrades? Of all the problems I had with 10.5.0, some disappeared with 10.5.1, and the keyboard update did work for most of us.
The upgrades are gradually hammering out the problems that Leopard has, and I question whether that's "buggy." Sure it's slower than we'd like, but most of us have not had more problems with the updates (and I know some have, but that is not the majority).
Haha, I meant the whole OS. As a whole, the idea of making new machines that are only compatible with the new OS, while making it extremely difficult--if not impossible--to downgrade to the prior, stable OS, is the part that rubs me the wrong way. It was this frustration (fighting uphill to install XP on brand new Vista machines) that drove me to OS X. And Bam! Same scenario here. That said, I agree the .x fixes are improvements.
CalBoy
macrumors 604
Oh, I see what you mean now.
I hate to look at it this way, but part of me understands why Microsoft and Apple acted that way. If we step back and consider that at some point, support will end for the older OS sooner than for the newer one, customers should "suck it up" and take the new one.
That said, customers who bought a machine between Leopard's release date and say until 10.5.3 comes out, are getting the worst deal. It's unfortunate, but I can understand both sides of the coin.
Now, if only Apple had devoted more resources towards Leopard rather than the iPhone, we wouldn't be in this mess...
Yeah, I see your point. In the end, they're always going to make new versions and drop support for old ones. It's up to the users to decide when to upgrade. And yes, if there was more of a software/hardware focus (instead of gadget development), a lot of this could have been avoided!
CalBoy
macrumors 604
I know the iPhone is important and all, but it caused Leopard to be delayed by 6 months, and probably led to a decline in Leopard's quality. 😡
Mind you, I do love the iPhone (can't afford one though 😛) but I'm still upset that it prevented me from having a better Leopard!
yellow
Moderator emeritus
Because I have not experienced the compatibility, speed, functionality, and uptime that I require from OS X. Hence, me returning to Tiger until the Leopard bugs are worked out.
I understand you opinion. But i am talking about the people who complain that leopard is crap because it just doesn't look pretty. yeah it runs slower on my mid 2007 macbook too (although not as slow as you say yours does -shrug) and yes, it does have it's issues, but the fact that is has an ugly menu bar does not make it a crap os.
panzer06
Contributor
So much is being written about the various reasons why and why not of Tiger vs. Leopard; comparing features, UI, functions, compatibility, even XP and Vista are brought into the fray.
All of this is very unnecessary.
First, lets get rid of the XP/Vista discussion. Windows XP, while relatively stable, can in no way be compared to OS X in terms of stability or functionality. Microsoft needed to replace XP to answer critics complaints about security and future 64-bit functionality. Vista, does resolve some of those issues but at a significant cost in performance on older XP-capable hardware. There are at least a few legitimate needs Vista answered for some Windows users, particularly in the areas of security (again nowhere near as effective or elegant as under OS X) and DirectX10 support for high end games.
Second, the useful features in Leopard most often discussed are Spaces, Bootcamp & Time Machine. All of these features could have been added to 10.4.X (Tiger) without the significant internal changes introduced by 10.5 (Leopard). Had these few fairly significant features been added to Tiger, what reasons were really left for the creation of a new version of OS X?
A. Upgrade revenue for Apple While most Apple fans agree Apple is entitled to a profit, how significant is this revenue versus the disruption created by an upgrade that breaks numerous applications and utilities?
B. A pretty face Plenty of third party skins and themes were available under Tiger and by no means can even the most ardent supporter of Leopard say that the new look is essential to the Mac experience. (Many users plain and simple dont like the changes)
C. The most significant legitimate reason for a new OS X is providing a full 64-bit OS. Would offering a 64-bit version of Tiger to the limited market that truly needs such power have been sufficient for the limited need. Many fans argue Apple must plan for the future and the future is 64-bit. Perhaps, but the average user doesnt need the power or capability 64-bit computing provides.
Third, the disruption to the installed base was completely unnecessary. Other than the overall economic benefit of hundreds, if not thousands of firms gearing up to support Leopard through application updates, driver development, and new development for a whole class of retro tweaks to provide Tiger look and feel under Leopard, there is/was no compelling reason to issue a new version of OS X. Keeping people employed and creating new jobs is good for all of us but in this case the resources might have been better spent developing the next big thing or tightening Tiger support, rather than creating employment based on upgrade churn. Apple had/has market momentum in the home/media/creative space based on factors wholly separate from an operating system update. Apple did not need to upgrade Tiger at all. As it is, many, many users would have paid a smaller upgrade fee to get some of the features added to Tiger as some sort of enhancement pack rather than a wholesale OS change that broke countless existing applications.
Four, previous OS X updates actually moved the OS forward in significant, tangible ways, fixing performance issues in the graphics and networking subsystems that made a significant difference in the ability to use the Mac for business and entertainment. I have not seen a single successful argument that says Leopard provides some significant, game changing improvement without which Mac development would be stalled. Creating something new for the simple sake of creating something new is needlessly disruptive and distracts the company and its support infrastructure from more important tasks.
Tiger was neither obsolete nor inadequate in any way. It functioned so far beyond the capabilities of Windows that comparison was/is a joke. Why do you think the Get A Mac ads resonate so well with the buying public? Windows is something perceived as a must have because so many companies and individuals already have it. Millions of Windows users would use a Mac if they afford one and their employers would use one.
I dont begrudge anyone spending his or her time, effort or money on Leopard. This is the free market at work. However, Apple should not have spent so much of their marketing capital and public goodwill on the development of a product that does not add significantly to the Mac computing experience and in many cases detracts through hidden upgrade and support costs beyond its initial purchase costs.
I know there must be progress, all things have a beginning and an end, but creating something new just because you can and telling all your existing customers to use it and like it just because its new does not help the company or its customers.
Cheers,
clevin
macrumors G3
you can compare anything but capability of windows, windows is capable of doing many things OSX can't, exactly when apple taunted OSX's functionality in any ads? Imagine a gamer, tell him how OSX is capable of anything? lets be real.
100% agree. Having used both Tiger and XP extensively, I would be *really* hesitant to say either OS was superior to the other. The XP/Tiger->Vista/Leopard analogy works precisely because XP/Tiger were stable, solid systems for millions of power and n00b users alike who had no need for an upgrade before Microsoft and Apple respectively rolled out Vista and Leopard. I could switch in and out of XP and Tiger in a heartbeat; both are simply different ways of doing the same things. Both have their quirks, upsides, and downsides. It ultimately comes down to user preference in terms of choosing between the two.
panzer06
Contributor
Gaming is one area Apple has never concentrated on, however, to argue Windows is a better OS because you can play advanced games is the same as saying the XBOX360 or PS3 have superior operating systems.
I have over 8 Windows systems and 2 Macs. I have managed huge IT staffs where only Windows was supported and small shops where Macs did everything, including file, print and database services.
While it is true there are countless programs that only work under Windows, would this be the case if OS X or any other UNIX derivative had similar market share? OS X works so well not just because it is well written but because it is tied to monolithic hardware and there are limited choices available. This makes support much easier.
Just ask the game developers how much fun it is to support Windows games. With millions of possible hardware combinations Windows is very difficult to troubleshoot.
In no way do I denigrate Windows. I am just saying to the Leopard-centric folks that making a XP-Vista : Tiger-Leopard comparison just doesn't work. It's not about Windows vs. OS X but the necessity of Leopard being developed (at this time) rather than continuing to make incremental improvements to Tiger.
Cheers,
I have no issue with Windows per se, however, Windows XP is far from extremely stable. Ask the help desk of any large corporation how easily a user can wreck a XP based computer. The fact that I can restore XP using Ghost or some other application distribution tool in minutes doesn't take away the fact it is very easy to break Windows XP. Like Vista or no, I've personally seen less screwed up Vista systems as a percentage of the installed base than XP, however much of this is due to the intrusive security settings keeping various malware off the systems in the first place.
I do agree that Apple did not need Leopard. I'm not so sure Microsoft could really say the same. Vista or something better is needed to fix the security holes in XP.
Cheers,
clevin
macrumors G3
you do realize that there are ~19 times more people who have the chance to wreck a windows computer. and there are unlimited hardware combinations might give windows a problem. right?
when you have that many macs, Im not sure it would be much different.
CalBoy
macrumors 604
This is one of the reasons why I like to give Microsoft some kudos. We all like to pick and bash, but it's a hard job when ~98% of the world's computers are running your software on what could be drastically different hardware. Apple just doesn't vie for that market, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily be any better at it.