Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Oct 2007 08:02 UTC
Mac OS X Three reviews of Mac OS X Leopard, to be released coming Friday. David Pogue writes: "Leopard is powerful, polished and carefully conceived. Happy surprises, and very few disappointments, lie around every corner. This Leopard has more than 300 new spots - and most of them are bright ones." Walt Mossberg concludes: "Leopard isn't a must-have for current Mac owners, but it adds a lot of value. For new Mac buyers, it makes switching even more attractive." Edward C. Baig of USA Today writes: "With Leopard, Apple's operating system widens its lead aesthetically and technologically. Whether the sixth major release of OS X in as many years puts a dent in Microsoft's dominant market share is another matter entirely." Thanks to MacWereld.nl [Dutch] for pointing these reviews out.
Order by: Score:
Microsoft could surely learn from apple
by NxStY on Thu 25th Oct 2007 08:54 UTC
NxStY
Member since:
2005-11-12

Online price: 110$ and "everyone gets the Ultimate version." as Steve Jobs said.

Edited 2007-10-25 08:54

Reply Score: 11

aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

On the other hand Microsoft doesn't charge for their functional adding service packs. Not that I argue a major OS X release doesn't add more than bug fixes + one or two features, but still.

Anyway Windows basic is so basic it's shit and ultimate is redicilously expensive, so sure Microsoft could have made only one good version (ultimate) and sold it for a "middle cost".

If they are affraid people won't buy it because it's so expensive and consider other oses they can always make the OEM version real cheap ;)

In the light of Windows Ultimate macs aren't that expensive, vs FreeBSD or similair they indeed are thought ;)

Reply Score: 3

Hakime Member since:
2005-11-16

"On the other hand Microsoft doesn't charge for their functional adding service packs. Not that I argue a major OS X release doesn't add more than bug fixes + one or two features, but still"


Come on! How many times should we hear the same stupid sh...?

Microsoft Service packs are nothing more than bugs fixes and some features improvements, which is exactly what Apple does with their 10.x.x releases. Don't tell me that XP SP2 was more than that, SP2 was intended to fix an insecure system and a flawed design for security, so its a bug fix release!!!!
If you would really know what really Apple put in their major release (which also means that if you would be a OS X user ), you would not say that, i means stop being stupid, check it on the Apple web site.

And if i follow your thinking, microsoft should have proposed Vista for free, right? How do you explain that it costs a fortune, but still it is bloody full of major bugs.

Reply Score: 9

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Microsoft Service packs are nothing more than bugs fixes and some features improvements, which is exactly what Apple does with their 10.x.x releases.


Erm, 10.x.x releases are bugfix and security releases. They do NOT add new features to the operating system. Service Packs for Windows, well, sometimes they add new features, sometimes they don't.

Don't tell me that XP SP2 was more than that, SP2 was intended to fix an insecure system and a flawed design for security, so its a bug fix release!!!!


Yeah and it introduced a set of new features. And no, it did not fix a flawed design for security. There is nothing wrong with NT's security. It's Microsoft's sloppy default setup that is to blame, not NT's security itself.

Easy on the exclamation marks, by the way.

And if i follow your thinking, microsoft should have proposed Vista for free, right? How do you explain that it costs a fortune, but still it is bloody full of major bugs.


Because Windows Vista is a much bigger release than any of the OS X .x releases. Leopard has "300 new features"? By Apple's count, Vista'd have 300 000. Of course, that's Microsoft's own bloody fault.

Reply Score: 3

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Removed comment;
Wrong context. I thought you meant "10.?" instead of 10.x.?"
---
I personally think that Vista is like X.0 in many ways. Avalon is a great system, potentially much better than Core Animation. The problem is that the whole UI stack on Windows is a laughing stock and needs to be scrapped. I was fed up with waiting for Microsoft to make Windows into what I now know I already have with Mac OS X.

Edited 2007-10-25 11:26

Reply Score: 2

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

I personally think that Vista is like X.0 in many ways. Avalon is a great system, potentially much better than Core Animation. The problem is that the whole UI stack on Windows is a laughing stock and needs to be scrapped. I was fed up with waiting for Microsoft to make Windows into what I now know I already have with Mac OS X.


It doesn't matter what something -- could -- be. What matters is what it is and the track record of the company that created it.

Apple is actually rewriting low performing code in their OS. Microsoft doesn't. With each version of Mac OS X Apple is making changes so that people can be more efficient than the previous version. I don't hear anyone saying they will be more productive with Vista. Meaning that you will get anything done faster or that it will look better. That's what the fundamental difference is between Apple and Microsoft.

Reply Score: 4

dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

I agree with this...

They should stop supporting every Tom, Dick and Harry's motherboard. Stop supporting AMD processors and stick to Intel and optimize their code for it. Stop working with all those vendors on their device drivers that make the system unstable and unreliable.

What MSFT should do is select a single vendor and pick which devices would be supported.

It will probably collapse a large portion of the computer market. All those motherboard manufacturers, drive makers, etc. Its not exactly like they are thriving on the apple model, but it will make everything else better. ;)

Its not like IBM and Sun will be complaining that Microsoft is note making software for their servers. After all, Microsoft is learning from them and moving their OS to fixed hardware platform (like AIX and Solaris)

-D

Edited 2007-10-25 15:10

Reply Score: 1

bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Erm, 10.x.x releases are bugfix and security releases. They do NOT add new features to the operating system. Service Packs for Windows, well, sometimes they add new features, sometimes they don't.


So I suppose the vast addition of device support with driver updates, bluetooth improvements in the 10.3.x releases, etc. are all my imagination?

Come off it Thom.

Are the changes as visible? No. Are they there? Yes.

Personally, I much prefer the Apple model.

I'd rather pay smaller chunks of money for incremental updates to functions and features TODAY than pay buttloads of money for stuff I don't need that gets delivered FIVE YEARS LATE.

Apple is consistently delivering valuable additions to their Operating System and Platform. People are taking notice, look no further than the recent reports on sales figures for proof.

Oddly enough, Apple's stance on delivering yearly updates to the software is more in line with Eric S. Raymond's suggestions in The Cathedral and the Bazaar than the MicroSoft thrice a decade model.

People want polished things today, not tomorrow, not six years from now.

Reply Score: 8

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Because a number is FAR more important than actual functionality.

Did XP get hardware accelerated UI in a service pack?
How about a low-latency sound system?
A hardware accelertaed real time video / image processing unit?
Full meta search capability??

Oh, and Mac OS X updates get faster each release, not slower in every single aspect. And even if that's down to "bad coding", Tiger is still faster than Vista.

Reply Score: 8

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Did XP get hardware accelerated UI in a service pack?
How about a low-latency sound system?
A hardware accelertaed real time video / image processing unit?


Definitely true. It's ridiculous to compare Apple's .x releases with Windows service packs.

Full meta search capability??


They have been offering Windows Desktop Search for ages now, for XP. For free.

Oh, and Mac OS X updates get faster each release, not slower in every single aspect. And even if that's down to "bad coding", Tiger is still faster than Vista.


Most definitely. Apple has a great track record on this one. Microsoft is getting better at this one though, Vista's performance has been improved pretty well since its release.

OF course, it was kind of hard not to improve its performance. Kind of like OS X 10.0.

Reply Score: 1

mym6 Member since:
2005-08-26

You have to admit that Windows Desktop Search on XP blows. Google desktop on XP is far better. WDS on Vista is better though.

OS X's release cycle isn't bad at all. It's incremental and easier to budget for. Vista is very expensive, essentially requires you to get new hardware to get the most out of it. While it is true that it's the only upgrade a Windows user has had to pay for since XP, people just don't think like that. They just see the $300 price tag for ultimate or the requirement of a new computer.

OS X on the other hand appears inexpensive, it adds new features each time will install and run well on reasonably recent machines. And you get security/bug updates for free, just like Windows.

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Oh, and Mac OS X updates get faster each release, not slower in every single aspect. And even if that's down to "bad coding", Tiger is still faster than Vista."

OSX updates *may* get faster with each .1 release, but who's to say that Vista won't get faster over time? It's already gotten faster even over the past year, without any .1 release or SP release. Vista is slower than XP on the same hardware, but so was OSX 10.0 slower than Mac OS 9 on the same hardware.

BTW, for many, Tiger is *slower* than Panther. And the fact that Apple is not allowing Leopard to be installed on lower-end G4 systems (G4 systems with less than 800MB or less than 800Hz, or whatever it was (I forget :p)), would indicate that Leopard is slower than Tiger on similar hardware.

Edit: Kroc listed the real Leopard system requirements above, so I add them here rather than letting my fuzzy memory on the subject try to stand on its own (lol):
Tiger: PPC G3,4,5 (as low as 400 MHz I think) / Intel, must have Firewire, 256MB RAM, 512MB realistic
Leopard: PPC G4,5 (867Mhz+) / Intel, 512MB, 1GB realistic

My point, of course, still stands, that Leopard would appear to be slower than Tiger, particularly on lower-end hardware, since Apple isn't allowing installation on such hardware. So the claim that every OSX release increases performance is shaky at best.

Edited 2007-10-25 17:51

Reply Score: 2

tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

"My point, of course, still stands, that Leopard would appear to be slower than Tiger, particularly on lower-end hardware, since Apple isn't allowing installation on such hardware. So the claim that every OSX release increases performance is shaky at best. "

Molly Molly Molly... Your "point" of course.... is just your biased opinion! thats it!! the FACT is that most Mac users (MOST) see a speed bump when they upgrade to a new Mac OS. and that the way it has been since 10.2. I am sure 10.5 will be the same! (for now... that just my opinion... for now)

Reply Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Molly Molly Molly... Your "point" of course.... is just your biased opinion! thats it!! the FACT is that most Mac users (MOST) see a speed bump when they upgrade to a new Mac OS. and that the way it has been since 10.2. I am sure 10.5 will be the same! (for now... that just my opinion... for now)"

My "biased" opinion is that of one that's used and programmed Macs since 1986. I know of what I speak. And Mac OS 9 was faster than OS X 10.0 in mine, and many others (I'd say *most* others) experience. IMO, the perf hit was more than worth it (I gather from Vista users that Vista's perf hit is not worth it.) 10.1 was faster than 10.2, but still slow. 10.2 was faster than 10.3, but still slow. 10.3 was the first OS X with decent performance, IMO. Now, I don't run 10.4, but I know many have said that 10.4 is slower on their Macs than 10.3. As for 10.5, the fact that Apple isn't allowing it to be installed on lower-end Macs doesn't tell you something regarding it's performance visa-vi 10.4? It seems logical to conclude that since 10.5 has higher system requirements (for both CPU clock-speed and RAM), it would be slower than 10.4 on similar hardware.

Edited 2007-10-25 18:42

Reply Score: 2

erikharmon Member since:
2007-06-20

I'm in a similar position and I agree with you 100%. 10.0 was a dog compared to OS9, and in my opinion OS X wasn't even a finished OS until 10.3. 10.4 is slower on my G3 B&W and on my G4 Mac Mini than 10.3 was. Also in my opinion, iLife is too slow on anything but my Macbook Pro. There is a reason they are cutting out the G3's with 10.5, and it's because too many features are going to tank performance. My Mac Mini G4 could barely do Spotlight.

Here is why I do not believe 10.5 is going to be faster: Apple hasn't been blasting us with "It's faster!!!!11!"

Reply Score: 2

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Thats actually a bad assumption. The requirements could be there just to ensure support. Apple may just not want to support the older hardware. Even if the assumption were kind of true, I still find the requirements quite conservative compared to vista. Besides that there really shouldn't be any issues, if you don't want leopard stick with tiger or panther if it work well for you. Reports that I have heard from devs where I work say that the speed is greatly improved, the kernel has seen some definite love. Comparing OSX 10 to 9 is like comparing win95 to winXP. Yeah, Win95 is faster than XP but do you really want to use it?

I personally have seen speed increases in every version of OSX, if not throughout the whole OS at least in specific areas. I do have to admit that Tiger runs much slower on a mac mini (1st gen) with 256 ram, but then its my fault for running it with less than recommended ram specs. Overall though it still feels speedy when opening things and only gets slow when I have too many things open at the same time. I would love to see Vista run on something like that, it probably wouldn't boot past the vista logo, even Xp would have issue with that type of ram, it will run but would you really want to.

The point is that regardless if you believe the fanboyism or not, OSX is still much faster and more efficient than windows, with eyecandy on and all. Hoepfuly with the decoupling of the windows kernel from the ui, MS can focus on making things more efficient and with virtualization drop its dependence on backwards compatibility. I'm a Linux user but even I feel embarrassed for Vista.

Reply Score: 4

elmimmo Member since:
2005-09-17

> As for 10.5, the fact that Apple isn't allowing it to be installed on lower-end Macs doesn't tell you something regarding it's performance visa-vi 10.4?

It tells me they also sell hardware.

Reply Score: 2

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

"Oh, and Mac OS X updates get faster each release, not slower in every single aspect. And even if that's down to "bad coding", Tiger is still faster than Vista."

OSX updates *may* get faster with each .1 release, but who's to say that Vista won't get faster over time? It's already gotten faster even over the past year, without any .1 release or SP release. Vista is slower than XP on the same hardware, but so was OSX 10.0 slower than Mac OS 9 on the same hardware.


History tells us.

The history of Microsoft products is not in improving performance but sending out bug fixes and security patches. XP did not run faster as time went on. Vista did slightly but the history of MS tells us that they won't continue to make performance improvements.

The history of Apple is very different. Each version of Mac OS X has improved performance.

Reply Score: 0

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"History tells us.

The history of Microsoft products is not in improving performance but sending out bug fixes and security patches. XP did not run faster as time went on. Vista did slightly but the history of MS tells us that they won't continue to make performance improvements.

The history of Apple is very different. Each version of Mac OS X has improved performance."


History tells us that OS X got faster from 10.0 to 10.3, anyway.

As for Vista, it's already faster (according to its users) than it was when it was released, and reports are that SP1 does increase performance. You may be premature in condemning Vista as forever slow.

And those Vista perf increases are FREE. I know that .1 OS X releases include more than bug fixes and perf fixes, that they include features as well. But the fact is the perf enhancements of each .1 release do come at a cost of $130 every 12-18 months. .x.1 releases are free but do very little regarding perf.

Edited 2007-10-25 18:51

Reply Score: 2

SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Vista needs SP1 faster than ever and it's going to get it because of the huge bugs, after 6 years is should be streamlined. Apple brought out 5 OS X versions in that time that are faster than Vista.

Take out the superprefetch and memory caching in Vista and see how slow it really is.

Edited 2007-10-25 19:02

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Mate, I'm sorry, but as soon as you said:

On the other hand Microsoft doesn't charge for their functional adding service packs. Not that I argue a major OS X release doesn't add more than bug fixes + one or two features, but still.


You have lost ALL credibility in this debate.

Mac OS X is more than just a service pack - just because it doesn't go for 'teh bigger number is teh better' as Microsoft.

What did Windows XP bring over Windows 2000? some kernel tweaks, interface tweak and thats it; all of it could have been done through a service pack. What has Windows Vista provided?

I look through the various versions of MacOS X I have purchased, 10.3, 10.4 and soon to be 10.5 - and each time I bought a copy, I NEVER had buyers regret. I never had that moment of 'geeze that was a waste of money give the lack of features/changes/improvements'.

Look at the differences mate. One hand you have PC users screaming, wailing and whining over Windows Vista. Mac users like me on the other hand EXCITED about a new release; your side is petrified of what could go wrong. We're excited about what has been included, the new features and so forth. See the huge difference between the two worlds?

Reply Score: 10

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

First, I'm both, MS an Apple hater. Both because of my long term relationship with them.

What did Windows XP bring over Windows 2000? some kernel tweaks, interface tweak and thats it; all of it could have been done through a service pack. What has Windows Vista provided?

Yeah right. User switching, new browser, new mailer, new IM, completely restructured sound and graphics. On 2000 you can't even watch video decently.

XP was more than service pack. Not that I like XP, I actually hate it.

I look through the various versions of MacOS X I have purchased, 10.3, 10.4 and soon to be 10.5 - and each time I bought a copy, I NEVER had buyers regret. I never had that moment of 'geeze that was a waste of money give the lack of features/changes/improvements'.

I on the other hand had those regrets. And I know a lot of people who do. It is just you who is blinded not to see that kind of people.

It's like you would say that there is no happy MS user out there, or linux, or solaris.

All systems have happy and unhappy users. Difference that OSX runs on one hardware only is just much easier to maintain. Most of the problems with windows arise from hardware drivers, where Apple gets by the easy way. Second is malicious software, which is not present on OSX or linux. One reason is that niche platforms don't have enough users, second are better and more sane security defaults.

See the huge difference between the two worlds?

Yeah, in your two worlds there is a difference.

Reply Score: 2

jonhohle Member since:
2006-06-06

Difference that OSX runs on one hardware only is just much easier to maintain.


Leopard is supported on over 50 hardware revisions from Apple (that doesn't include processor bumps). It supports 4 different architectures (PowerPC and Intel, both 32-bit and 64-bit). I have binaries that run on all four, without modification (that were released before Tiger).

Microsoft doesn't have anything like this. Have you heard the pain the Vista 64-bit people are going through? XP 64-bit was nearly a joke. When Microsoft supported Alpha and MIPS in NT 4.0 could you find any applications to run on it?

Linux doesn't have anything like this. Everything in Linux is built for a specific architecture, not to run seamlessly across architectures.

To downplay the idea that Mac OS is running on two significantly different architectures and two variations of each of those architectures is to miss something very exciting (it was largely overlooked when NeXT did it years ago). But that's quite a testament to its effectiveness. When you don't even notice that you're running a PowerPC binary on an Intel processor, Apple has succeeded.

Most of the problems with windows arise from hardware drivers, where Apple gets by the easy way.

By writing or porting their own drivers? Oh yeah, that's the easy way.

From The Inquirer:
Note that the non-emulated support in OSX is for applications and drivers. 32-bit programs on Vista 64 need to work on WOW emulation to run in Vista, and 32-bit drivers are a no-no. Lack of driver support is the main reason Windows XP x64 hasn't been widely adopted, and why the Vista fudge will ensure hardware incompatibilities between the two Windows versions remain for sometime to come.

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/08/14/64-bit-leopa...

Reply Score: 2

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Leopard is supported on over 50 hardware revisions from Apple (that doesn't include processor bumps). It supports 4 different architectures (PowerPC and Intel, both 32-bit and 64-bit). I have binaries that run on all four, without modification (that were released before Tiger).

50 is what matters here not other. MS, Linux, Solaris need to run on how many variations of hardware?

All other just tells me how you don't know what I talked about.

but let me bite.

You simply tell compiler to compile all versions and pack a wrapper that will detect and run correct one. Pack that together. What is the catch here? If you thought you've impressed me... guess what... NOT

As for Vista, Vista doesn't pack 32-bit libraries as linux does or OSX does not need (universal binary has all versions, either that or JIT).

Why do you think classic was removed in this one? Because it worked inside system as a system, and there were no use for it anymore. All major applications were rewritten and replacements for others are present. MS is expecting for 64-bit versions to pop up.


p.s.

Leopard is supported on over 50 hardware revisions from Apple (that doesn't include processor bumps). It supports 4 different architectures (PowerPC and Intel, both 32-bit and 64-bit). I have binaries that run on all four, without modification (that were released before Tiger).

There never were 4 architectures. PPC OSX was always 32-bit with some libraries for 64-bit memory management.

Edited 2007-10-26 13:05

Reply Score: 2

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

On the other hand Microsoft doesn't charge for their functional adding service packs.


Tiger (OS X 10.5) is NOT a service pack. This is not something where Apple is slipping in a feature or two.

As for 300 features, technically yes. People will say it is pretty pathetic that they count each new feature in a program separately to come up with 300. My point would be that if Apple didn't create that feature and you really wanted it, then you would definitely count it as a feature you would want added. Based on that, then yes, there are 300 new features in Tigard.

Now compare that to a service pack in Windows. They don't compare at all. AND, does ANY update to Windows make your computer faster or YOU faster at getting things done with the same computer? Or do you have to buy a computer that is four times faster just to get back to the same speed as the previous version you had before? Not to mention all the nagging that Vista now has.

Reply Score: 1

vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

Learn what? Make snarky comments? I thought that was Balmers job?

Reply Score: 2

SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Not to screw their customers for all there worth, give more better and updated OS more frequently, give everyone the same features for the same price, Dont put your new graphics API into the OS so people need to update a whole new OS just for that, need I go on?

You won't need a new OS for OpenGL 3.0, just new drivers.

Edited 2007-10-25 18:13

Reply Score: 2

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

I do agree with your point ... but Vista was meant to be the OS X of MacOS.

They've screwed it up by trying to retain backwards compatibility but with all the changes in Vista (not always for the best) I'd compare XP/Vista more to OS9 and OS X

Aero is not a replacement for Direct X, open GL has nothing to do with it other than in Vista OpenGL now runs within DX making the whole idea almost pointless..

XP is much slower now than when it originally came out but also MUCH more secure... Vista is getting faster as time goes on but only because the OS was half baked on release in the first place.

I've heard rumours that the GM of leopard isn't perfect... I hope it turns out better for Apple than it did for MS.

Reply Score: 1

daschmidty Member since:
2007-03-01

However i think it can't be ignored that OS X isn't necessarily THAT much cheaper then windows over the long run. Since the initial OS X release there have been two new versions of windows (xp, vista) and now 5 versions of macos. So even at 100-150 a piece, staying current costs almost as much as going with MS.

Reply Score: 1

Ah, Leopard
by DevL on Thu 25th Oct 2007 08:55 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

Christmas is early this year. :-) I'm looking forward to upgrading my Macs (dual G5, MacBook, Mac Mini G4) and getting myself another Mini with Leopard while I'm at it.

By the looks of it, Leopard should work well enough even on low-end hardware such as the Mini G4.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ah, Leopard
by aliquis on Thu 25th Oct 2007 10:22 UTC in reply to "Ah, Leopard"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Yeah, only thing I wonder is how fast coverflow in finder are. Steve aka BOOM jobs often show how fast iPhoto are and in his videos coverflow is real fast. But I wonder how it can even BE that fast, I guess they could put some graphics in regular memory or I wonder if it will use even more of my VRAM which Apple was only giving me a tiny amount of in the first place.

Apple suck for that and I will always hate them for it, 128MB is retarded and you shouldn't force people to pay like 700 dollar more for 256MB...

Aperture works like shit on 128MB if someone wonder.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Ah, Leopard
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Ah, Leopard"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Are you on a MBP? I don't experience such a problem. 128VRAM is fine, I've managed to run Quake 4 on high detail (obviously not max), Tomb Raider Anniversary on max, and this is on an ATI-1600. The new graphics cards in the MBPs are massively better, ranging about 4000 3DMarks.

What you might be experiencing in Apature is a laggy HDD, not VRAM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ah, Leopard
by Sabon on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Ah, Leopard"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple suck for that and I will always hate them for it, 128MB is retarded and you shouldn't force people to pay like 700 dollar more for 256MB...

Aperture works like shit on 128MB if someone wonder.


If you are working with PRO programs, which Aperture is, then you need PRO amounts of RAM. You can either get that by buying the PRO version of the Mac Book or the Mac Pro, both of which have PRO amounts of RAM.

The non pro computers (they don't have pro in the name) are made for non pro people but made so that you can upgrade them (to a point) for pro use.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ah, Leopard
by Sabon on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Ah, Leopard"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, only thing I wonder is how fast coverflow in finder are. Steve aka BOOM jobs often show how fast iPhoto are and in his videos coverflow is real fast. But I wonder how it can even BE that fast ...


Actually ... yes. It really is that fast on any Apple computer bought in the last couple of years. As with any computer with Windows, the newer the computer the faster anything works.

What might surprise you is that every version of Mac OS X that I've installed on my 7 year old iMac which is my wife's main computer (I get the newer ones since I do higher end stuff) always runs faster than previous versions of Mac OS X on that same hardware.

Now has any new version of Windows run faster on your computer than a previous version? How about service packs? Do any of those make your Windows computer run faster than without the service packs? Maybe a little or most likely it just crashes less. But faster, rarely with Windows but always with Mac OS X. AND you can document it with a stop watch. It is real and you can time it.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Ah, Leopard
by tryphcycle on Thu 25th Oct 2007 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Ah, Leopard"
RE[2]: Ah, Leopard
by somebody on Fri 26th Oct 2007 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Ah, Leopard"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Steve aka BOOM jobs

???

... and Steve the CHAIR DESTROYER balmer? Whoah, Put them into ring.

Probably would just feature two monkey like jumping&shouting creatures. One shouting "features, features..." and second one "developers, developers, developers"

Sorry, couldn't resist on this one, but this whole thread is like a Vista, OSX showdown without a simple basis to stand on.

Reply Score: 2

Curious to see
by alcibiades on Thu 25th Oct 2007 09:44 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

Curious to see what exactly will stop anyone building their own machine with Apple compatible components, and then installing on it from the retail copy. Very curious.

Also, how long the block, if there is one, will hold up.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Curious to see
by aliquis on Thu 25th Oct 2007 10:24 UTC in reply to "Curious to see"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

There are a very limited amount of (non-Apple branded) Apple compatible components, and I'm very confident you can't install a retail copy on it.

If we are talking a hack on a BIOS/EFI machine I'm very confident it will happen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Curious to see
by vermaden on Thu 25th Oct 2007 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Curious to see"
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

Check this for running Mac OS X on a regular PC:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Curious to see
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Curious to see"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

We're talking about building an actual Mac, not installing an unsupported, buggy, hacked operating system. Parent said "Retail version"

Reply Score: 3

RE: Curious to see
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 10:57 UTC in reply to "Curious to see"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Drivers / EFI boot ROM.
If you could get hold of an Apple motherboard, then sure, I'm fairly certain that you could then build a Mac yourself.

AFAICT the only things that make a Mac, a Mac, is the EFI firmware which would identify the machine and that the OS would work with. You can install Mac OS on a totally blank hard disk, so there's nothing there preventing it.

Reply Score: 2

Lousy reviewers again
by Karitku on Thu 25th Oct 2007 09:48 UTC
Karitku
Member since:
2006-01-12

Bunch a Apple fan boys reviewing again. Maybe it's accident that these same people praised iPhone like hell before any real review came up and now they review Leopard as first. After reading what crap Mossberg said about iPhone and what reality turned out I don't think anyone should take this guy serious. Same goes for David Pogue too. Lets wait few days before real reviews hit the internet.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Lousy reviewers again
by tupp on Thu 25th Oct 2007 11:35 UTC in reply to "Lousy reviewers again"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Bunch a Apple fan boys reviewing again. Maybe it's accident that these same people praised iPhone like hell before any real review came up and now they review Leopard as first. After reading what crap Mossberg said about iPhone and what reality turned out I don't think anyone should take this guy serious. Same goes for David Pogue too. Lets wait few days before real reviews hit the internet.

Agreed.

It appears that your comment is too rational for this forum -- for some strange reason, I am unable to mod-up your post.

Edited 2007-10-25 11:37

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Lousy reviewers again
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 25th Oct 2007 11:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Lousy reviewers again"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

for some strange reason, I am unable to mod-up your post.


That's because you already did.

We're watching you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Lousy reviewers again
by tupp on Thu 25th Oct 2007 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lousy reviewers again"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

for some strange reason, I am unable to mod-up your post.

That's because you already did.


Well, the rank doesn't change when I click to mod-up a comment. I tried several times with everything turned-on in the browser. UI feedback is sort of important.


We're watching you.

You certainly know how to make members feel welcome and free to comment.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Lousy reviewers again
by Tyr. on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Lousy reviewers again"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

for some strange reason, I am unable to mod-up your post.

That's because you already did.


Probably got modded down in the time between your last refresh and the upmod effectively cancelling it out. Happens all the time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Lousy reviewers again
by tupp on Thu 25th Oct 2007 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Lousy reviewers again"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Probably got modded down in the time between your last refresh and the upmod effectively cancelling it out. Happens all the time.

That is a possibility, but the modding buttons on that post didn't "grey-out" to indicate that my mod-up had taken. In fact, the modding buttons still have full color on that post and, thus, still seem active.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Lousy reviewers again
by webarchitect on Thu 25th Oct 2007 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lousy reviewers again"
RE[4]: Lousy reviewers again
by Tuishimi on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Lousy reviewers again"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

It was probably a joke. Thom may SEEM humorless at times, but I bet he has a pretty good sense of humor.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Lousy reviewers again
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Lousy reviewers again"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What a lousy thing for a staff member to say whom should know better...


Lighten up, it was a joke. Damn internet.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Lousy reviewers again
by webarchitect on Fri 26th Oct 2007 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Lousy reviewers again"
webarchitect Member since:
2007-03-16

My Bad, your right, I think I was having a bad day and lost my sense of humor when I made this post.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lousy reviewers again
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 11:44 UTC in reply to "Lousy reviewers again"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

How is the iPhone not what it is?
Apple offered a prodct as it is, and people bought it. The reviewers were actually not that full of praise, all of them pointed out massive ommissions like no video capture, no MMS &c.

It's the hackers that complained because the iPhone wasn't what they want; but then I don't go trolling the Internets just because I can't freely choose to change the OS on the Wii and other closed systems.

I think, frankly, that you are trying to place your own frustrations into the mouths of these reviewers, rather than giving them the benefit of their own objectiveness. I though Mossberg's review was straightforward and mostly unbiased in the same way that no review made on [Apple] supplied demonstration hardware is unbiased.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Lousy reviewers again
by Sabon on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:17 UTC in reply to "Lousy reviewers again"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Bunch a Apple fan boys reviewing again. Maybe it's accident that these same people praised iPhone like hell before any real review came up and now they review Leopard as first. After reading what crap Mossberg said about iPhone and what reality turned out I don't think anyone should take this guy serious. Same goes for David Pogue too. Lets wait few days before real reviews hit the internet.


And what exactly about the iPhone were they wrong about. NOTHING! Just because you can't figure it anyway that you want to does not mean that they reviews were wrong or bad. Be specific next time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Lousy reviewers again
by MollyC on Thu 25th Oct 2007 17:15 UTC in reply to "Lousy reviewers again"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I'm confident that Leopard is a quality product (though I would wait for the 10.5.1 release), but there is some truth in what you say regarding Mossberg and Pogue. Those that trash Thurott for being biased when he reviews Microsoft products should regard Mossberg and Pogue with the same skepticism regarding their reviews of Apple products.

Anyway, Leopard might entice me to finally upgrade my 5-year old PowerBook to its modern-day intel descendant. Then again, I *just* upgraded from Panther 10.3.8 to 10.3.9 yesterday, having ignored Software Update's notifications regarding 10.3.9 for over two years or so. :p So I'm pretty slow when it comes to updating anything, be it software or hardware.

Edited 2007-10-25 17:18

Reply Score: 4

v RE: Lousy reviewers again
by tryphcycle on Thu 25th Oct 2007 17:42 UTC in reply to "Lousy reviewers again"
time machine is unfinished!
by juhani on Thu 25th Oct 2007 10:05 UTC
juhani
Member since:
2006-07-06

I really hoped that they would make a system wide time machine, saying "you overwrote your presentation with, no recycle bin can save you, but time machine can".

So it is an advancement, but my hopes were for more.

Reply Score: 1

RE: time machine is unfinished!
by aliquis on Thu 25th Oct 2007 10:25 UTC in reply to "time machine is unfinished!"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Your comment does not compute.

Reply Score: 9

v OS X - a nice update
by ciplogic on Thu 25th Oct 2007 12:11 UTC
RE: OS X - a nice update
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 12:20 UTC in reply to "OS X - a nice update"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"From 10.0 release to 10.5 there is practically no major update to the Mac OS."

So have you tried training for Olympic-level lying? I'm sure you'd go quite far in the 2012 games.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: OS X - a nice update
by ciplogic on Thu 25th Oct 2007 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE: OS X - a nice update"
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

Krok, I've plus your comment as a good joke. If you look to your mark, u'll see a plus one. Please look on your preffered documentation source, try youtube, or any other source for following presentations and launches:
- Windows 95
- Mac OS X (when it is first time shown that OS)
- Windows 98 (I know, the blue screen)
- Vista presentations
What you will see: Windows 95 was revolutionary: NT userspace with 32 bits on top of DOS kernel which was 16 bit OS, with high-level UI.
OS X was revolutionary too: replaces the OS 9 (which stalls from the OS 7) with a new API, and new desktop abstractions: the Aqua theme, the Cocoa APIs, Carbon for compatibility, command based (instead pixel-based) drawing, Unix background with great tools on the top (based on a modular kernel, or hybrid one, if you like more that term) of a redesigned kernel and PDF based architecture.
Windows 98: an incremental update for Windows 95 OSR2, even it integrates more things inside desktop, like: a browser, more wizards, support for multiple monitors, that was an evolving step.
Vista on it's side has a somehow old base: NT kernel, .NET platform, and like OS X does, it put on top a new frontend for users and developers: proactive security (is similar as what does OS X with sudo model), user-space drawing (means lower BSOD on bad video drivers), .NET 3.0 frameworks (I know, you wanna shoot me for that). Still, it copies some things from OS X: XPS based drawing ( http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpsdevs.mspx ). Even I'm not a fan of MS (I write that lines from Ubuntu desktop), I have to admit that some things: Widgets and SpotLight were a part of Longhorn with two years before OS X has inside of Tiger, but first company that accomplish that task, was for sure Apple. The same is with gadgets and notifications, were MS make public some additions.

What features are namely for OS X Leopard (and their counterpart Vista equivalents):
- better Finder (the Vista's Explorer is much improved, I think that they pair here)
- a new dock (the toolbars in Vista have some issues, but they have transparency and preview in Aero's mode)
- some widgets (there are some gadgets on Vista too, still there it lack at that point)
- new browser (increased version of Safari, similar with IE7)
- 64 bit OS from ground to up, Vista does the same
- bootcamp: Vista does not need it
- Spaces: Vista has not bundled any equivalent
- new mail, iChat, etc. same happend to Vista
- Time Machine: no equivalent at the same use
- QuickLook: Explorer has for years some similar features, but mostly works on third-party plugins in XP, but is not matched by far at the level of elegance of OS X
- resolution independence: is a part of Vista, which is great to happend on OS X part too

Sorry if I miss the point, but Coverflow is not a major update, if you want to push the lying and say that every aloud marketed feature is a feature that is spectacular, you can look that Core Animation is weaker than the MS counterpart, the XAML definition of UIs and WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation).

I hope you have to add arguments more and put a trolling opinion less.
Thanks, yours truly,
Ciprian Mustiata

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: OS X - a nice update
by jonhohle on Thu 25th Oct 2007 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OS X - a nice update"
jonhohle Member since:
2006-06-06

I have to admit that some things: Widgets and SpotLight were a part of Longhorn with two years before OS X has inside of Tiger


To Quote John Gruber:
Obviously, Apple ripped off the idea for Dashboard. Stolen wholesale, without even the decency to mention where they took the original idea.

Which, of course, would be the desk accessories from the original 1984 Macintosh — conceived by Bud Tribble and engineered (mostly) by Andy Hertzfeld


And Spotlight was designed by Dominic Giampaolo (http://www.nobius.org/~dbg/), the guy responsible for BFS. He knew more about instant searches before Vista was called Longhorn than Microsoft probably knows about them now.

In my opinion, its not just first to market or first to invent: its first to get things out the door correctly. That's where Microsoft has been losing, and Apple winning in a big way.

Look at 64-bit, Apple's approach has is just as elegant as their support for PowerPC and i386: one binary, multiple architectures, everything just works. Does the user care about 32-bit or 64-bit or have to buy one version of the OS or another? Nope. One disk works with all supported computers. Nearly all binaries work with all supported computers. 32-bit PPC binaries running on 64-bit Intel computers! The process is so seamless you forget that you're not running a native app.

QuickLook is not just a preview pane, which OS X has also had for years (in column view). I'd say its better akin to a read-only viewer for everything, with support for third-party additions.

Running down a checklist of features and comparing apples (no pun intended) to oranges isn't valuable to anyone but bean counters. If Vista and Leopard were really that similar, you'd probably see people moving off Macs onto dirt-cheap, commodity PCs. Obviously the trend is going in the other direction, so there must be something else than Widgets: check, 64-bit: check, Flashy: check.

Last I checked (its been a year or two), resale value on Macs is very good pretty good. If you haven't had one, get one as your next computer, try it for a few weeks, and eBay it if its really no different. The depreciation shouldn't be tremendous and you'll have learned a lot in the process. (disclaimer: Do your homework before deciding to resell something on eBay ;) ).

Reply Score: 5

RE: OS X - a nice update
by Tuishimi on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:47 UTC in reply to "OS X - a nice update"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Ummmm... the kernel has been improved to help eliminate the "beach ball" in OS X. It's just that the "kernel is boring news" to most people, and not worthy of press time (not flashy like coverflow). Networking has been improved. Data integration between applications has been improved.

The old adage, btw, if something ain't broke, don't fix it, could very well be applied to your arguments regarding what OS X derived from NEXTSTEP. Don't know why you would be hung up on this? So what if NEXTSTEP was taken and reworked? (And it was reworked, NEXTSTEP was not PDF, it was PS (similar, not identical). It was the product of an (ex-) Apple employee and engineers, and they "came home" so to speak.

Reply Score: 2

amazing
by SK8T on Thu 25th Oct 2007 12:20 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

it's a huge step forward. And as I like to say, the quality is more important to quantaty ^^

Reply Score: 1

Time Machine
by zotkop on Thu 25th Oct 2007 12:30 UTC
zotkop
Member since:
2007-10-25

Timemachine is amazing....
I wonder if you let it scroll back (quite) some years,
would it end up being vista all of a sudden? ;)

Reply Score: 0

From fan- to flanboy
by orfanum on Thu 25th Oct 2007 13:45 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

I have been with OS X for about a year now; I fell for the lurve and then realised, as in the case of most quick romances, my partner was not all they appeared at first glance;

I have upgraded my hardware significantly, like renewing my vows, but my ring-pull machine will soon probably fall out of favour as the OS follows rather the glitz of spanking new gold and diamonds.

I have indeed been into the Garden of Love but Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt not was writ over the door (sorry, W. Blake); now I shall leave the Garden of Love, and wend my way there, no more.

I am not going back to my Ex, though but shall seek Free Love, elsewhere.

Sorry, feeling a tad poetic today.

Reply Score: 2

RE: From fan- to flanboy
by dindin on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:08 UTC in reply to "From fan- to flanboy"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

I have been there too ...

I have a Mac Mini (for the Mrs.) and two Powerbooks (G4 15 and 17 inch). I also use FreeBSD heavily for network based testing (dummynet of course).

But I too have started to switch. I am starting to see a lot more Gray screens on the Macs. I had to upgrade RAM to over 1GB to get core video and other stuff to work. Don't even talk about having two users logged in with NeoOffice documents open. The system crawls. Now I have a Vista Desktop and a laptop.

Also, Apple charges for Remote Terminal licences. MSFT does not.

-D

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: From fan- to flanboy
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE: From fan- to flanboy"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Remote Terminal Licences? You'll have to elaborate here?
Apple charge for their ARD software, either fixed client number, or unlimited; but that's for their specific software. The actual controlling is done through VNC which is built in, and you can use any number of free clients to control as many Macs as you want.

Microsoft on the other hand charge per client(s) for Server 2003. Mac OS X Tiger/Leopard Server has no user cap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: From fan- to flanboy
by dindin on Thu 25th Oct 2007 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From fan- to flanboy"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

Not on server, but XP. You can RDP into XP or Vista from another system using RDP. On OS X, you need ARD.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: From fan- to flanboy
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From fan- to flanboy"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

No you don't. You can use any VNC client and connect to any other Mac. ARD is just a management app for large number of machines, you can still use VNC for free though. Plus, the RDP client on Windows (for accessing other machines) only comes on the higher versions of Windows; so you have to end up installing VNC on windows too unless you have Business or Ultimate (for the controlling machine)

Reply Score: 2

Hardware upgrade requirements?
by walterbyrd on Thu 25th Oct 2007 15:28 UTC
walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

I know that Vista requires *way* more hardware to get the same performance as XP.

What about the hardware requirements of Leopard, as compared to Tiger?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hardware upgrade requirements?
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 16:26 UTC in reply to "Hardware upgrade requirements?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Tiger: PPC G3,4,5 (as low as 400 MHz I think) / Intel, must have Firewire, 256MB RAM, 512MB realistic
Leopard: PPC G4,5 (867Mhz+) / Intel, 512MB, 1GB realistic

RAM is key really, the more the better. A maxed out iMac G4 can run Tiger surprisingly well, when Vista would be unusable. I have a 700MHz G4 iMac with 768MB RAM and it boots in a pleasent 45 seconds.

Reply Score: 2

Slower much slower
by cchance on Thu 25th Oct 2007 15:35 UTC
cchance
Member since:
2006-02-24

Sorry to say guys im running the 581 build and unfortunately its slower than 10.4.10 ... alot .. especially safari and finder... but finder is only really slow when your dealing with the coverflow view....

safari has already semi-frozen 5 times even on just opening to google.com my homepage it goes all white and sits their for like 2 minutes then comes back.

Also the dock is noticibly slower at times with the scaling, yes the OS in general is much nicer and theirs little new features... but the whole hype from apple and their "300 new features" is the same as when microsoft claims "500 new features" or whatever it was for vista... the fact is they nitpick alot of behind the scene changes but in reality i've seen little in change from 10.4 to 10.5 visually... its a bit darker the dock has the shelf woohoo, and they added coverflow everywhere.

And since coverflow isnt exactly a system seller i'd say its more a really good service pack than a major iteration. At least to me

Reply Score: 1

RE: Slower much slower
by SlackerJack on Thu 25th Oct 2007 16:28 UTC in reply to "Slower much slower"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

How can 300 features be hype, the video on Apple's website clearly shows the new features in action, we've known this for quiet sometime. Since when can you preview PDF's and videos in Vista like that, it dont even support PDF's never mind previewing them without even opening them.

Your claiming the same that Leopard is more a good service pack is nothing more than FUD, if your a real OS X user your a sad one at that. Vista gives the option to boot and run other OS's along side it?, aleast Apple let you boot a competing OS along side OS X as a feature in it's own OS.

Edited 2007-10-25 16:34

Reply Score: 2

RE: Slower much slower
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 16:32 UTC in reply to "Slower much slower"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Since it's not actually avaialble yet I presume you're running a pirate version, secondly you didn't even specify your hadware. And if I want to be unscientific, then I'd say you were talking crap. If Leopard is not faster when I get tomorrow, I'll let everybody know; but I do doubt it.

Reply Score: 2

I'll pay it.
by erikharmon on Thu 25th Oct 2007 15:36 UTC
erikharmon
Member since:
2007-06-20

I will pay 160 dollars to get rid of that beach ball. That thing is the bane of my existence. If Apple adds focus-follows-mouse without window autoraise, I will pay it again. Because at that point I will have no more complaints about OS X.

Reply Score: 2

Vista's GUI is a copy of OS X
by Kebabbert on Thu 25th Oct 2007 19:27 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

A former Microsoft developer says that they have a Mac GUI as a reference machine:

http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest...

Reply Score: 0

Nothing in Leopard, other Mac OSes were good
by sumone on Thu 25th Oct 2007 20:01 UTC
sumone
Member since:
2007-02-11

Honestly, what do people see in this edition of the Mac OS X? (please don't give me list of features). Agreed that Tiger was a revolutionary upgrade with killer features...some best ones ever on the Mac platform but Leopard is the equivalent big disappointment. In so many months, they only managed to add this much? Maybe making all the code 64-bit took so much time.

10.0 (Cheetah-March 24, 2001) - Original features
- Aqua and Quartz
- Keychain and Keychain Access
- Interface Builder
- Chess
- Mail
- TextEdit
- Terminal
- Apple Advanced Typography
- AppleScript
- Grab
- Network Utility
- Speech

10.1 (Puma-September 25, 2001)
- ColorSync 4.0
- ColorSync Utility
- AppleScript improvements, AppleScript Studio
- DVD Player
- Image Capture

10.2 (Jaguar-August 24, 2002)
- Core Audio, Audio MIDI Setup, Audio Units
- Quartz Extreme, Quartz 2D Extreme
- MPEG-4
- Address Book
- Calculator (Advanced calculations, editable paper tape, unit conversions, currency rate conversions)
- Spam filtering for Mail
- Bonjour (Rendezvous)
- iCal
- iSync
- iChat 1.0
- Journaling File System
- DiskImageMounter
- Disk Utility
- Handwriting Recognition (Ink), InkWell
- Sherlock
- CUPS
- Sync Services
- Bluetooth File exchange
- Disc recording framework

10.3 (Panther-October 24, 2003)
- ATSUI-Advanced Text Services for Unicode Imaging (Text Engine/Text Services)
- Safari and Webkit
- iChat AV (2.0)
- AppleScript improvements (Script Editor, script bundles/applet bundles, GUI Scripting-Apple System Events)
- Font Book
- Brushed metal
- Exposé
- Fast User Switching
- Faxing
- FileVault
- X11
- Xcode and Developer Tools
- Activity Monitor
- IPv6
- BOMArchiveHelper
- Printer Setup Utility
- System Profiler

10.4 (Tiger-April 29, 2005)
- Automator
- Core Image
- Core Video
- Core Data, SQLite
- Core Foundation
- Spotlight and Smart folders
- H.264
- iChat AV 3.0 with H.264 Conferencing
- Dashboard
- RSS and color management support (ICC V4) in Safari
- Core Audio additions
- VoiceOver
- Dictionary/Thesaurus
- Grapher
- Quartz Composer
- AU Lab
- Parental Controls
- Photo Booth
- Front Row
- Address Book Smart groups
- Smart card support
- Smart crash reporting
- Migration Assistant

10.5 (Leopard-October 26, 2007)

- Resolution independence?????
- 64-bit (last OS to become fully 64-bit)
- Time Machine ??? 2nd HDD
- Spaces (Eye-candy and so-called increased productivity)
- Core Animation
- Alex (Amazingly natural voice), new accessibility features (Braille, VoiceOver improvements)
- Mail (Stationery templates, notes, to-do lists) LOL
- Dashcode and Webclip, widget creation for non-developers
- iChat 4.0 (Multiple logins, animations, audio and video recording, iChat Theater, PhotoBooth effects, video backdrops) - Okay, this one is cool
- iCal, CalDAV, Calendar store for applications, sharing and group scheduling
- QuickTime Analog Closed Captioning
- Stacks, 3D Dock, Finder UI improvements
- Remote Parental Controls
- DTrace/Xray
- Scripting Bridge
- Grammar check, smart quote support, automatic link detection and support for copying and pasting multiple selections in text engine

Comparitively, aren't there so less new features in Leopard? This time, Apple goofed up, inspite of profiting and peaking. And Classic is also being removed.

Reply Score: 1

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

XCode 3.0 (tons of new crap in here)
Interface Builder is rewritten and extended
Objective is now Objective 2.0 with many important catch up features
WebKit 4
ODF and OOXML in TextEdit
Several advancements to Core Framework
System wide integrated AppleScript with Ruby, Python and ObjC 2.0
Device Driver Updates unified under Software Update
New Kernel
New Threading model
AutoFS
etc....

Edited 2007-10-25 20:09

Reply Score: 2

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

So you are telling me that Apple removes features with every release as opposed to building on the existing features from the last release? I think you need to keep things in perspective. It's like all those complaints about Gnome not having any revolutionary features, yet if you look at the difference between 2.0 to the latest version you will see a huge amount of difference and features. The same can be said about OSX, they build on what they have and add features and tweaks throughout each release. Its an OS what what feature are you looking for exactly? Its a point release, this is not a major version upgrade, this is not windows. Each release is not supposed to be a huge revolutionary amount of features, they are supposed to keep the users interested and not scare them off by changing everything every release.

Reply Score: 2

Biased Reviews
by porcel on Thu 25th Oct 2007 21:17 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Let me start by saying that OSX is a solid and aesthetically pleasing OS, but Mosberg's review reads like a paid advertisement.

There are plenty of things that are suboptimal that he doesn't bother to really dig into. The fact that being able to do remote administration of another computer only works with "some routers" or that application features are closely tied to specific versions of an operating system or the force obsolescence of older computers which are perfectly capable of running the operating system or the fact that in the age of openness, Apple continues to create close formats for its productivity apps.

But you will never hear any of these things from Mossberg, which is a shame because they could only strengthen and improve what is by all accounts a pretty good operating system.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Biased Reviews
by Kroc on Thu 25th Oct 2007 21:37 UTC in reply to "Biased Reviews"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Because regular users don't think, nor care about those things? Tiger is no less capable just because Leopard has come out. I haven't lost anything, nor been moved into obsolescence.

Reply Score: 2

why so many of us are Apple Fan Bois?
by aking469 on Thu 25th Oct 2007 23:31 UTC
aking469
Member since:
2006-01-16

Well, the one thing that seems to be forgotten here is the fact that nearly all of Apple's customers were former MS users. Many of us cut our teeth on DOS and the various Windows versions. When we made the switch many of us were genuinely amazed at the difference in attitude (on the part of the company) and the difference in productivity. While we do admit that MS has had some great ideas, their ability to bring them to my desktop has been severely limited. MS has often promised a great deal and provided little more than some flashy eye-candy coupled with a very crippled OS. The hacking that I had to do on XP to make it usable for me was extensive. With OS X most of that was unnecessary. Further, with things like the ALL POWERFULL AND UNTOUCHABLE registry most users are scared to death to try to change anything. If you check, and my Opera singer daughter is a good example, even people who aren't geeks find fiddling with their Apple to be exciting. She hated her Thinkpad. Even threatened to quit using computers completely, regardless of my efforts to make it work better. With her MBP she is a computing dynamo. She is comfortable. She even has called Applecare and had great experiences. Those are the kinds of things that EARN rabid loyalty on the part of customers. Go ahead call me a Fan Boy, I'll wear the label proudly......too bad the years of using MS products didn't produce the same type of loyalty. But, hey if it did I would never have learned about Unix variants nor Linux.....Thanks Bill & Company...........You set me, and many others, free.

Reply Score: 2

Meh
by nzMM on Thu 25th Oct 2007 23:34 UTC
nzMM
Member since:
2006-06-22

Apple Mac's occupy this weird space in my mind, a sort of no-mans land. They are bleeding edge and often better in design than most of the competition (nice to ogle at once in a while), yet seem to lack the software support of companies whose products i desire.

In terms of everyday utility Ubuntu and WinXP have all my bases covered. For extensive software support i have WinXP, and i have Ubuntu for all the easy light weight stuff on a nimble desktop. Plus with Ubuntu you get a free ride watching all the remarkable innovation taking place before your eyes -- and i admit that i do actually enjoy the problem solving that is still apart of the Ubuntu experience (lol).

Two things would have to happen for me to embrace MacOS. 1) Start catering to a lower price range, PC's excel in terms of affordability -- or just let us easily install OSX on PC's. 2) Valve Software's catalogue supported on MacOS natively ;) .

Edited 2007-10-25 23:37

Reply Score: 1