You think Leopard has problems? Try Vista.

Discussion in 'macOS' started by hodgjy, Feb 20, 2008.

  1. hodgjy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #2
    I think it'd be better to compare 10.5.2 headaches to Service Pack 1 for Vista.
     
  3. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #3
    yeah, I bet vista will also drop ur wi-fi every 5 second. or turn your screen to dead white.

    please, how does that realistically help users?
     
  4. hodgjy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    #4
    My point was that 10.5.2 has been very successful. Apple didn't have to pull 10.5.2 from their servers. Vista had to release a pre-patch that will set the stage for SP1 to be installed.

    Has Apple ever had to release a pre-patch? Furthermore, Vista's pre-patch destroyed so many computers that Microsoft pulled it from their servers.

    Sure, 10.5.2 isn't perfect, but it works. A few people still have troubles, but they're not as bad as the Vista nightmares.
     
  5. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #5
    all the complains are minorities, why we understand "few" ppl have problem with leopard, but refuse to understand that not everybody have problem with vista as well?

    Im not sure if 10.5.2 is successful, but "apple didn't pull it from server" is NOT a proof.

    We all know how rigid apple is, it would stick the flawed stuff out there just to avoid the PR embarrassment.

    MB RSS anyone? how long does it take for apple to admit it?
     
  6. Quillz macrumors 65816

    Quillz

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #6
    What an idiotic thread. Most people will never have issues with Leopard or Vista.
     
  7. hodgjy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    #7
    What a great post. You obviously missed the point. My point was Leopard is good, yet many people here complain about it. Vista has its troubles, so we should be happy with Leopard.

    You woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

     
  8. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #8
    Leopard works fine for me.

    Vista Ultimate 64 bit works fine for me.
     
  9. acxz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    #9
    I bought an iMac with Leopard on it last December. Works fine.

    I bought a laptop with Vista Home Premium on it last week. Works fine.

    Most of Vista's issues come from people not installing the right drivers for their hardware.
     
  10. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #10
    are you honestly accusing ppl of complaining for fake reasons?
    and what kind of logic is that?
     
  11. Fuzzy14 macrumors 65816

    Fuzzy14

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Location:
    Renfrew, Scotland
    #11
    What? There has been almost a million updates to Windows? :eek:

    My dad (against my advice) bought a Wintel laptop at the same time I bought my SR MacBook, and I swear he is on the phone twice a week asking why something isn't working (normally the webcam on Skype.) OK, part of it is his user ignorance, but even I struggle to work out why nothing works.

    Oh, and I've read loads of Leopard bug reports in here but I've never had any problems. I guess the vocal ones are the ones with problems, here's one for the silent majority!
     
  12. hodgjy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    #12
    Well, I'm so sorry for posting a pro-mac post here in a mac forum. I'll be sure not to do that again.

    I was just voicing from the silent majority that most of us have no problems with Leopard.

     
  13. vohdoun macrumors 65816

    vohdoun

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Location:
    Far away from Earth.
    #13
    Dead black, seriously! but sometimes.

    I've had corruption with external devices when safely removing them from Vista. No filesystem present upon next time I plug it in.

    Piss poor file transfers.

    Oh and is that the reason why it was pulled? The classic I've heard is SP1 is blue screening people's systems.
    [Edit] Appears so, classic.
     
  14. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #14
    There are better ways to do what you want, IMHO.
     
  15. GSMiller macrumors 68000

    GSMiller

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #15
    I'm so glad Apple doesn't take the "service pack" approach as Microsoft.
     
  16. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #16
    so whats the difference between SP approach and apple's 0.0.x approach?
     
  17. vohdoun macrumors 65816

    vohdoun

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Location:
    Far away from Earth.
    #17
    This is how it goes, Vista got released January 07, MS releases little stand alone updates over a period of 1 to 1.6 years. MS bundles all those patches (can usually mount up to 100+ before a Service Pack, I think XP is sitting at close to 200 stand alone updates or over before SP3 arrives) MS puts it in a all in one package. User downloads the hefty big download (sometimes if its that big its available on CD/DVD, which happened with SP2 for XP back in August 2004).
    Sometimes other things are added to the Service Pack that wasn't yet made available, as well as other revised things like the kernel. But its mostly all the updates released previously bundled altogether.
     
  18. hodgjy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    #18
    Microsoft takes years to release SPs and Apple releases 10.x.y updates ever few months (at most).

     
  19. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #19
    so M$ offers incremental and batch patches for users? is that really that different?
    you should have noticed that 10.5.2 is 384MB/180MB in size, if apple needs to put out a ~200MB patch every 3 months, what does that tell users? Too many holes!
     
  20. ajx22 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Location:
    Honolulu (Hawai'i Kai), Hawai'i
    #20
    Do you understand computers? There will ALWAYS be holes; as millions of users will always be able to find or make holes that the developers could not have foreseen.

    Too bad you're forgetting the near weekly releases to Windows Update that try to 'patch' the major security issues found with M$ OS's.

    And I've spent ~20 years as an IT Admin, mostly of M$ networks with 200+ systems - so I can attest to M$'s 'issues'. FYI - Vista SP1 addressed nearly nothing of the known issues out there.

    Here are the "Windows Updates" just off my HP Laptop:
     

    Attached Files:

    • 1.jpg
      1.jpg
      File size:
      139.7 KB
      Views:
      46
    • 2.jpg
      2.jpg
      File size:
      143.9 KB
      Views:
      42
    • 3.jpg
      3.jpg
      File size:
      129.9 KB
      Views:
      40
    • 4.jpg
      4.jpg
      File size:
      134.2 KB
      Views:
      38
    • 5.jpg
      5.jpg
      File size:
      7.2 KB
      Views:
      32
  21. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #21
    yeah, and somebody above just complain M$ makes patch too "infrequent"?

    1. show me the size, Im glad my system is patched all the time, as long as they are not big files, like I mentioned above.

    2. show some detailed list of apple's 10.5.2. and take an honest look and see how many files it has.
     
  22. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #22
    Does it really matter?

    It is impossible to have completely bug free software over a certain size. Absolutely impossible. The only thing you can do is try and minimise those bugs as much as possible.

    Size of patch is also irrelevant. You have no idea what those files contained. They could be images and other resource types for all you know and as you are also aware images take up a fair bit of room. Even if it was just binaries size of patch is still meaningless.
     

Share This Page