"Leopard started out with a generous share of first-version glitches, but almost all of them have now been resolved by the second of two automated updates, which brings Leopard up to version 10.5.2. Finally, Leopard is extravagantly overdressed for the jobs that it's designed to do, and its pervasive eye-candy starts out looking dazzling but soon becomes distracting. Fortunately, from the beginning, the OS started out with options that let you put it on a low-eye-sugar diet, and the latest update has even more."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-12
I dont see a issue with Apple(or any vendor) making a OS that runs optimally on the hardware they choose, it means they can properly use SSE3 optimizations to get the best performance rather than having to rely on memory caching /prefetching so it works fast with any hardware.
If your in any doubt about OS X not being fast on other hardware I can tell you now it's simply not true(see hack*ntosh).
I think the new stuff in 10.5.2 is great, it didn't take them long at all to fix and add features which people asked for or moaned about. People like you should get over the money and hardware thing, Apple is proprietary, they can set up a business how they like with what hardware they like and one things for sure, you know your going to have to pay more for Apple stuff which is a fact, dont like it dont buy it.
Member since:2005-07-06
""it's by far the best operating system ever written for the vast majority of consumers""
"No it is not. It may be a very nice OS. It may be the best thing since sliced bread for everyone with suitable Apple hardware to run it on. But the best OS for most people, it ain't as long as it involves them in a total hardware replacement to get it. "
Actually, you are missing the point of the authors statement. The fact that it requires Apple hardware does not negate what he said. It probably is the best OS for most users. The fact that it would be the most expensive option does not change that.
I have spent a lot of time helping people with Windows problems, mostly for free as I am retired, and I can tell you with certainty that most would be far better off with OS X for what they use a computer for. It surely would make my life easier if they would switch.
And before you blow me off as an Apple Fanboy, I will admit that I do use OS X after more years than I care to mention of using Windows. I will also say, though, that having learned computers using vacuum tube systems many years ago I have experienced many different OS's. And speaking from that perspective I have to agree with the author.
BTW, this is being written on my BSD machine. I am an OS junky, I suppose because I like using just about anything but Windows. :-)
Member since:2007-12-13
I concur with the statement that OSX is the perfect OS for the majority of users. I also buy that it's trumped by the fact that it's only licensed to run on Apple hardware (albeit, we all know its possible to run it on non-Apple hardware).
I come from the perspective of having used about 25 different operating systems over the years and there's good and bad points to all of them. OS X offers the most unobtrusive and efficient environment for what I would consider average home and business use, as well as more advanced media-related uses.
Despite saying that (and using OS X as my desktop environment at home and work), I have more affection for Linux than OS X. OS X does what you'd expect it to, and it does it efficiently and elegantly. Linux, does what you tell it to, sometimes elegantly, and with brutal efficiency (given that you know what you are doing).
Windows is a mixed bag. The OS (Vista or XP) works well, but has far more annoyances and unexpected behaviors overall. It supports a wide range of hardware. Linux supports more, but Windows supports new hardware earlier; Linux hardware support tends towards maturation (works better with time), whereas Window hardware support tends to stagnation (no improvement, often dropped completely with time. Windows' strength is the quantity of software available, though my experience is that the quality/reliability is highly variable and on average less than its peers.
I'd like to see OS X embrace non-Apple hardware. I'd like to see checkpointable processes, a better virtual filesystem layer that plug neatly into Finder (think KIO), and user-settable AppleDouble / AppleSingle support transparently applied to filesystems (like CIFS and NFS) that don't support multiple streams (like NTFS and HFS+ do), hooks into .Mac made hideable, and .Mac features supporting domain hosts of your choice.
Member since:2005-07-06
What's so onerous about a hardware replacement? Most computer owners already do that every few years anyway, why would it be worse to replace a Windows machine with a Mac, rather than a newer Windows machine?
Member since:
2005-10-12
it's by far the best operating system ever written for the vast majority of consumers
No it is not. It may be a very nice OS. It may be the best thing since sliced bread for everyone with suitable Apple hardware to run it on. But the best OS for most people, it ain't as long as it involves them in a total hardware replacement to get it. Because Apple hardware is not the best hardware ever shipped for the vast majority of consumers. So an OS that forces them to get this hardware to run it simply cannot be the best for them.
What we see emerging here is a marketing slogan originating in Cupertino for mindless recital by the faithful in puff pieces masquerading as reviews and articles. Like many or most marketing slogans its a wild distortion of the facts. Like most Cupertino ones, and like the Party Line about OSX being in some way open source, it is a wild distortion, but it also has cultish overtones which make it more unpleasant than most.
Macs are fine if you like that sort of thing. They are indeed the right choice for a rather small minority of people. What they are not is the best computer ever made for the vast majority of consumers, and its quite gross to hear people parroting this sort of thing over and over again. It is in fact counterproductive for this reason. For every faithful follower who nods his head reading this sort of thing, there will be 10 or 100 outsiders who will say to themselves, no, not for me, Steve. Not like this.