Apple's OS X Leopard In Depth

jcatcw writes "Computerworld begins its Week of Leopard with an in-depth review and image gallery covering Apple's newest version of OS X. Is it worth the wait? Well, Yes. It trumps Vista, of course; the Finder, Quick Look and Cover Flow provide better functionality and eye candy; Time Machine is the biggest undelete ever and the restore function is one of the coolest things we've ever seen; it has iChat; and has lots of updates under the hood. The answer might be no if you're lacking in the hardware department - an FAQ on how to get ready for the new version will help."

Comments

Re:no surprise there

[drsmithy]

Clearly you haven't tried OSX. You get a consistent, fluid and high performance GUI. When you want a shell, you get a Unix one on a certified Unix OS; in a fancy translucent window if you so choose.

Probably because the version of OS X that potentially meets those standards was only released today. And I'm sceptical about the "fluid and high performance GUI", since 'teh snappay' of 10.4 would need to have increased *massively* to qualify.

Re:Let's state the obvious

[Winckle]

Word to the wise here, OS X has a built in web server as well, you tick the box under the web sharing pane in system preferences to turn it on. It's the same as yours, apache.
I can share my internet connection over wireless frequently when there isn't enough wired to go around at university, and no wireless AP.

What BSD window manager is as good as the new leopard finder?

And no I didn't mean kernel, don't fucking tell me what I mean you pretentious little twat. there's more to a UNIX-like OS than the kernel.

Time Machine

[meehawl]

So aside from the usual Apple glitzy restore shell with the hypnotic new desktop with a deep-space background image, complete with moving stars and a spiral galaxy, does Time Machine actually do anything more than, say, Acronis True Image?

Re:no surprise there

[drewness]

I'm quite sure that a Quad 2.66Ghz with 2GB of ram would be quite snappy in Vista too. Sadly, no. We have computer at work with Quad 2.66GHz processors, 4GB of RAM, a fairly current nVidia video card, and Vista Ultimate. And it's just at the cusp of usable. If I didn't know the specs I doubt I'd guess it was that powerful.

The Dual 1.8GHz iMac with 2GB of RAM (and a crappy Intel GMA video card) running OS 10.4 that I use is much snappier.

Re:Choice is not good

[Scooter's_dad]

Possibly, but they aren't going away, so debating it is somewhat pointless. Yeah, having menus appear where your mouse is might be a great idea, but we don't have it. We can either have the menu in windows (as in Windows) or on the top of the Screen. The second option is probably not the best possible option, but it's definitely a whole lot better than the first.

Like hell it is. Speak for yourself. I like having every window be a logically self-contained unit.

Another thing that drives me crazy about Macs is the inability to maximize a window. I *like* having the current window take up all the screen real estate even if it doesn't need it. It makes me feel like all my attention is focussed on the current app; otherwise I feel distracted. I remember how astonished I was when I was first told "you can't do that on a Mac."