Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Oct 2007 20:27 UTC
Mac OS X "While the Apple hype machine and its fanatical followers would have you believe that Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard' is a major upgrade to the company's venerable operating system, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, Leopard is yet another evolutionary upgrade in a long line of evolutionary OS X upgrades, all of which date back to the original OS X release in 2001. But let me get one huge misunderstanding out of the way immediately: That's not a dig at Leopard at all. Indeed, if anything, Apple is in an enviable position: OS X is so solid, so secure, and so functionally excellent that it must be getting difficult figuring out how to massage another USD 129 out even the most ardent fans. Folks, Leopard is good stuff. But then that's been true of Mac OS X for quite a while now." Additionally, Apple acknowledges installation problems caused by Unsanity's APE, while others are complaining about problems with Java, or visual oddities. Additionally, there are hacks that restore the black dock triangles, opacify the menubar, and to enable Time Machine on Airport disks. Update: It appears the Leopard firewall has a dent in its armour.
Thread beginning with comment 281831
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Hey Quicks Draw
by apoclypse on Tue 30th Oct 2007 15:20 UTC in reply to "Hey Quicks Draw"
Member since:

I'm running Vista on a dual core AMD64 3800+ and an integrated Radeon graphics card and it is not enough. It starts up fine but the usage is slow and even with 1GB of ram its still slower than it should be. In comparison Ubuntu runs faster if not comparably on a T42 laptop.

OSX runs rather well on our old 1st gen Mac Mini. It ran well with just 256MB of ram, with just a noticeable lag in application usage. You can't even use XP reasonably on 256MB of ram. Vista wouldn't even run on so little ram. Apple's success in this area has a lot to do with perception. The UI is smooth and makes up for a lot because eventhough the truth may be otherwise, the smoothness implies speed.

Vista is an okay, OS. It had a lot of potential, but over-ambition is its largest failing, imo. I think MS could benefit greatly from incremental releases, its a steady stream of revenue (only if the user actually want to upgrade) and Vista could have been a whole different beast if they had taken out incremental versions along the way.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Hey Quicks Draw
by akeru on Tue 30th Oct 2007 17:17 in reply to "RE: Hey Quicks Draw"
akeru Member since:

I take issue with the comment that Windows XP doesn't run well with 256MB of RAM. There's this popular misconception that Windows XP is extremely slow. This may be true if you install off the CD and leave it as-is, but with a bit of simple tweaking the OS is very fast. I've run XP on this laptop that had only 96MB of RAM, and while it wasn't a speed demon, it was faster than any other OS with the same level of usability/ease of use was on it. I used nLite to customize the install and get rid of all the stuff I didn't need, considerably tweaked services, and ran the classic interface.

Windows XP may have its fair share of issues, but speed isn't one of them.

Just to throw in there for fun, I have also installed Vista Ultimate (vLite/Tweaks) on this laptop after putting 512MB RAM into it. It installed and worked fine, just slowly.

Overall, I prefer to use Linux here, though this old hardware (Inspiron 5000/P3 600MHz) seems to be barely supported.

Edited 2007-10-30 17:23

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Hey Quicks Draw
by apoclypse on Tue 30th Oct 2007 18:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Hey Quicks Draw"
apoclypse Member since:

yes but the point is that out of the box XP is not optimized. This is not just a misconception. XP is slow, before SP1 it was fast after SP2 its slow. MS cheats quite a bit with their startup times by starting services after the user logs in. This can be a painful process sometimes. With all the crap that people install it freaking incredible how slow windows can be without 512MB and up. OSX's startup time is pretty quick and sometimes I'm surprised at how quick the desktop loads. I can say the same thing about Linux. Ubuntu startup, especially a clean installation is pretty damn quick, and eventhough the desktop doesn't load as fast as I would like, when its up its up. You on't have to wait for an hourglass to go away before you can use the desktop.

I work in an office which primarily has Xp machines, and 256MB is nowhere near enough for XP to really be speedy, 512 is fine ( I remember when the recommended specs for XP came out, I was like "What?! 64 MB should be more than enough to run anything", now I think 2GB isn't enough.

Reply Parent Score: 2