Leopard as the New Vista?

ninja_assault_kitten writes "There's an interesting rant from Oliver Rist up on the PC Magazine site. He compares the catastrophe that is Vista to the recently released OS X Leopard. While clearly one is a lion and the other a cub, there do appear to be some frustrating similarities. From the article: 'A month of using Leopard with the same software I had under Tiger and the OS has dumped six times. That's six cold reboots for Oliver. Apple isn't even honest enough to admit that Leopard is crashing: The OS just grays out my desktop and pops up a dialog box telling me I've got to reboot. Like the whole thing is my fault. I even snapped a picture of it. After all, I HAD PLENTY OF CHANCES!'"

Comments

Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you're mistaken. Apple is perfect. This must be Bill's fault.

Apple fanboi roll call!

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[G Fab]

While yeah, there are a ton of Apple fans out there that can take a bit too much pride in their machines, the fact is that this is somewhat unusual.

I've seen tons of mac laptops with cosmetic damage, but it's pretty rare that the operating system on a new mac is unreliable.

If this report represents a widespread issue, that's significant. And partly because macs are supposed to work without any problems. And frankly, there's no excuse for them not to. It's like that Halo 3 and the XBOX 360 lawsuit... it's all Microsoft, so there's no excuse for failure.

With my thinkpad, there are parts from several vendors interoperating and dealing with windows and ubuntu and even my playstation when I stream movies on TVersity.

With a mac, it's all Apple, all the time, so the operating system programmer has far less work to do... at least in my mind. Apple has a very interesting business model that ought to be reliable and usually is, so I think this incident somewhat shows why apple fans are so cocky (I'll stick with my thinkpad).

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Daengbo]

I think the current releases from three OS vendors suck right now: Vista, Leopard, and Gutsy. Being a full-time Gutsy user, I'm particularly hurt by that one, but not surprised. I said several times before it was released that it was going to suck more than Feisty, and it did. Canonical was trying to get everything unstable into Gutsy so that the bugs could be worked out for the long-term release. Wireless is broken (again) for many people on the same hardware that worked since Dapper. Enabling Compiz by default was a big mistake. Firefox is less stable. MEh.

At least Canonical has a reason for it to suck though: Microsoft and Apple intended to put out decent operating systems.

For the people I know:

• Vista owners are installing XP,
• Gutsy owners are installing Feisty, and now, apparently
• Leopard owners are rolling back to Tiger.

It's a fucking banner year for the OS. I hope 2008 is better.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Simon Carr]

I actually am one of those fanboys and I've gotta admit I'm very surprised by the number of issues that have come up with this release. These aren't small issues either. From the perspective of a sysadmin;

- X is hosed.
- Finder takes up large amounts of CPU at odd, mainly inconvenient times.
- It's much less graceful than 10.4, even in Tiger's early releases.
- There have been more than one borked upgrade that I've been witness to, which is brand new to me.
- First day of use I nearly lost my keychain, and it's still not 100% right.
- The new tmp layout broke a few key native OS X apps (Cyberduck, but the dev of Cyberduck was quick on the fix!)
- Weird arbitrary menu re-shuffling that seems out of the norm for Apple's usually anal layout and design philosophy (WTF is going on in the Network Prefs? It's been simple and straightforward since OS 8, and now it's like a circus).
- Longer and more frequent pauses in this release. I'm sensitive to the difference between perceptually slow and really, truly slow, and these are truly slow pauses.

There IS good of course, some of the new features I actually dismissed turn out to be awesome, like, not willing to downgrade back to 10.4 awesome, so I'm going to tough it out. But if I had to turn back time I'd wait until some time next year to order my copy.

As it is now I jumped the gun on ordering and I upgraded a bunch of clients to 10.5, to my present dismay (including my wife). Basically I bought on the good feelings I had towards 10.4.8-> and this release hasn't lived up to that standard.

So it's not that Apple is never bad, but what is new is the WAY that this is bad.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[G Fab]

I do in fact love Feisty and am not a gibbon fan.

The difference is that Ubuntu is free, of course. And compared with Vista, the next level of Ubuntu isn't as great a drag on my system (I need to use Office, so I'm screwed anyway).

I agree. 2007 had better be better. It's a great time for computing and I forsee massive changes in the operating system market. 90% of what people do with the internet is use the internet. If we start seeing internet applications that don't suck, the compatibility argument that macs and MS rely on becomes weaker. If a system can do flash, it's going to be a valid system for the marketplace.

So as the internet takes over, I see Windows becoming less and less relevant. Hell, I see the PC becoming less and less relevant. If an internet appliance can handle my applications, entertainment, and communciation, I don't need windows anymore (especially if I'm an idiot who is too challenged to run adaware).

I think we'll see iPhones and google devices and PS3 (that are more versatile) take over the living rooms, and the PCs will be left behind. Even offices are better served by internet terminals that leave documents safely on servers and out of the hands of laptop thieves.

That's why Apple is investing in their TV and Phone devices. That's why Microsoft has pours billions into their XBOXs and will start another very soon. Where is that development money coming from? OS development. Vista is not the kind of leap XP was because it would be stupid to keep investing in a model that is on the way out.

I don't think 2008 will see better OS products. But in several years, it won't matter.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Peter Cooper]

WTF is going on in the Network Prefs? It's been simple and straightforward since OS 8, and now it's like a circus.

The Network Prefs is probably one of the better enhancements. It was weird before with the rather odd shifts in interface layout occurring when you merely selected different items from the combo. Now, at least, you have all the interfaces down the left, you click on those, and you can edit each one's settings without too much button clicking.

I don't know what's going on with your machine, but I've upgraded several to Leopard with none of the odd bugs you appear to have. My pre-Leopard release of Cyberduck works fine, and continues to do so. I also use X (rarely) and that works.

Perhaps the difference is I did an upgrade rather than an archive and install on all of my machines? Anyway, no Leopard glitches here and all these machines get heavy use with lots of different apps. In fact, the only real thing that's ticking me off is that "Copy Link" in Safari now does a rich text copy rather than just a plain text URL.. and that's probably an enhancement for everyone else ;-)

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Brett Buck]

You don't like the new Network Prefs? That's a HUGE improvement from 10.3.9. No more chasing around in 4 different places to find the settings you need, they're all in one panel, along with the status. That alone made it worth the cost of the upgrade, as far as I am concerned.

          Brett

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Enderandrew]

Insert KDE vs Gnome rant here.

Insert All other Linux distros vs Ubuntu here.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Trillan]

I haven't had any of the problems you mention (X11 runs fine, for instance), but usually I wouldn't bother replying. Except...

You don't like the new network preferences pane?

I find it hard to believe anyone would defend the Tiger preference pane, let alone prefer it compared to the Leopard one. The old one was a horribly confusing mess, driven by popup menus. Seriously, seriously ew. The new one is so much better organized, the interface is stable (as in, doesn't change), and... honestly, that and /me support in iChat are my two favorite unannounced features.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Zaurus]

- X is hosed. They moved from XFree86 to Xorg. Big change. The x11-users@lists.apple.com has been super-active, though, with Ben Byer from Apple putting out tons of fixes. Most stuff works now or has a workaround. You can get the latest update here: http://www.x.org/wiki/XDarwin

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Daengbo]

But I'm not saying for a moment that people are or should leave Ubuntu for Suse, or even Ubuntu for Kubuntu. I am saying I know several (not including myself) who are leaving Ubuntu Gutsy for Ubuntu Feisty, the previous version. That's a serious wake-up call to Canonical.

I wasn't tying to side-track the issue into a Linux flame war. I was trying to point out yet another similarity. TFA asserted that Leopard is the new Vista. From what I see, Gutsy is the new Vista, as well. Vista, Vista, everywhere.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[JCSoRocks]

People keep on talking about thin clients... but I just don't see it happening anytime soon for a host of reasons.

Privacy - people scream at the idea of google reading their mail just to give them ads. What happens when they're storing all of their documents, photos, music, videos on someone else's server? I wouldn't be willing to do it. Nothing would convince me that employees of the company housing my data wouldn't be able to just go in there and check it out whenever they pleased. I believe Facebook is a classic example of this. Private profiles aren't private if you're an employee.

Power - I recently spoiled myself with a OC'd 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of RAM, two 150GB Raptors in RAID 0, two 640MB 8800GTSs and a 64 bit OS to make sure I'm taking advantage of my RAM. Games look beautiful on this beast. You'd have to have a heckuva server and a ridiculous internet connection to provide both me and other people (I say other people, because if I'm the only one using it, why is there a server / thin client set-up?) the same gaming experience I can get from my machine on my own. Not every piece of software will happily work using the thin client model. There are other examples, but games are the first thing that came to mind.

Security - This is the trust issue all over again. The "paris hilton cell phone" hack comes to mind. Her phone wasn't hacked, the server that housed some of the data that she stored on her phone was hacked. Aaaand naked pictures of her ended up everywhere and every poor sucker that knew her got called until they switched numbers. That was just crap from a phone - not the entire contents of someones computer. Everyone thinks it's funny when it happens to a celebrity but how would it be if your intimate videos ended up on the net for co-workers to watch? Personal letters? Photos? Angry rants about your current boss? The list goes on... The fact is I don't think any system will ever by "hack proof" but my little box under my desk is a much smaller target than say a server housing thousands or even millions of other people's data.

I'm not trying to crap on your parade, it just seems like ever since the .com boom people have been saying it more and more and I just don't see it as being a good idea.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[JCSoRocks]

bah, for some reason /. killed my link... I meant to provide this link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/19/AR2005051900711.html about the Paris hack.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[ozmanjusri]

And partly because macs are supposed to work without any problems. And frankly, there's no excuse for them not to.

They might have a slight excuse.

They are getting ready for the inclusion of a Win32 compatibility layer in OSX, so a little instability at OS level's not unexpected. At least those PE files will feel right at home...

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[hahafaha]

I am more or less a full-time Ubuntu user. When I bought my most recent laptop (the one on which I am working), I decided to go ahead and try one of the Dell Linux-pre-installed machines (The E1505N). Linux has a reputation of not being very good on laptops, and I figured that if it's pre-installed, it might actually Just Work. And it did. It was Feisty back then, and when Gutsy came out, I upgraded. The upgrade wasn't perfect, and some things were broken, or more so than before. But, on the whole, I am satisfied with Gutsy in that some things actually do work better than before (for me, for example, Compiz under Gutsy is working considerably better than Beryl did under Feisty). Sure, some things could be better, but at least it's not as bad as Vista. I honestly see *nothing* that Vista improved upon.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[onefriedrice]

> But if I had to turn back time I'd wait until some time next year to order my copy.

Wait a second. I thought Leopard came with a time machine?

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[ozmanjusri]

Insert All other Linux distros vs Ubuntu here.

But that's the great benefit of using a free (as in freedom) OS.

I used Ubuntu for a while (on my home computer), decided that while it was nice, it wasn't what I wanted. I switched to Sabayon, and I'm happier with that. The switch was painless - all the apps I used on Ubuntu were there in Sabayon, my data was all as usable with the new OS as it had been with the old, and all my hardware still works fine.

The cost of switching between Linux distros is so low that users can abandon any distro that's lagging, then switch back if the vendors improve. It's where real competition is driving real improvements.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[The One and Only]

Mod parent "obviously making shit up". They're doing nothing of the kind, have no good reason to, and building a Win32 compatibility layer is not an easy task.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Thanks! Wish I had mod points...

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[civilizedINTENSITY]

No one said it was easy. But then again, there were "usability" options alleged to have been part of the settlement when Apple sued...

Oh, and also,

Results 1 - 10 of about 404,000 for Win32 compatibility layer in OS X. (0.12 seconds)

The very first hit suggests

OSNews has an interesting post referencing some discoveries that Wine developers have made about OSX 10.5. Apple may be working on its own, new, OS-native Win32 compatibility layer, and keeping it quiet for now.

So it might be not be easy, but the fact that there was found what appears to be a windows binary loader in leopard lends at least some credence to the theory. Since this theory is not unique to the poster, he isn't "obviously making shit up".

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Upon further googling,

Remember Steve Jobs' first days back at Apple in 1997 as Interim-CEO-for-Life? Trying to save the company, Steve got Bill Gates to invest $150 million in Apple and promise to keep Mac Office going for a few more years in exchange for a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement? The idea in everyone's mind, of course, was that Microsoft would grab lots of Apple technology, which they probably did, and it quite specifically ended an Apple patent infringement suit against Microsoft. But I'm told that the exchange wasn't totally one-way, that Apple, in turn, got some legal right to the Windows API.
That agreement ran for five years, from August, 1997 to August 2002. Even though it has since expired, the rights it conferred at the time still lie with the respective companies. Whatever Microsoft grabbed from Apple they can still use, they just aren't able to grab anything developed since August 2002. Same for Apple using Microsoft technology like that in Office X. But Windows XP shipped October 25, 2001: 10 months before the agreement expired.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[absoluteflatness]

Vista is not the kind of leap XP was

I'm not sure I would call Windows XP a "leap." Sure, compared to the last version marketed to consumers, the ever-lampooned Windows Me, it was a huge improvement, but you were talking about development costs.

Windows XP is basically Windows 2000 with a new theme engine, added wireless support, and a few other things (also personal favorites like ClearType). The switchover for consumers from the 9x series to the much better NT/2000 kernel and core brought most of the noticeable improvements, like actually useful networking, USB, and multi-user support, not to mention the huge increase in stability. I would have to say that Windows Vista is much more of an investment for Microsoft than XP was. After all, they had to be doing some work to break all that backwards compatibility, right?

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[The One and Only]

No, he may be repeating other people (and several less-than-credible rumor sits) who most certainly are obviously making shit up.

No one said it was easy. But then again, there were "usability" options alleged to have been part of the settlement when Apple sued...

There was a patent cross-license. I seriously doubt Microsoft included enough for Apple to make a Win32 compatibility layer. And once again, I don't see any good reason Apple would want to do such a thing.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[iminplaya]

I hope 2008 is better.

Install Hillary? I don't think so. May as well roll back to Bush.

Roll, roll, roll in the hay

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[smilindog2000]

You make an excellent point. I'm a Gutsy user at the moment, and I also was expecting more. Feisty had set my expectations high. Two thoughts: First, Feisty was released in April '07. Even followed by Gutsy, that makes '07 a banner year for Linux, IMO. Second, '07 is the year of 64-bit pervasive computing. I personally hope to never purchase a 32-bit machine or OS again, and hope not to live to see the 64/128 transition. I think this transition is one reason for displeasure with the new OSes. Typical apps that use to run in 100 meg now take 150 or more, and run 10-20%slower, simply because they're 64-bit (except for mine). And talk about disappointment, I know tons of guys who were led to believe that 64-bit machines would be 2X faster. Twice the data width means twice the throughput, right? Sales guys basically suck. Even programming language designers have been caught with their pants down... mixing 64 and 32-bit pointers sucks or is impossible in all top-ten, and most make it impossible to represent 4 billion objects with 32-bit object handles, including C++, C#, the JVM (not Java), and D.

I heard a great story about why Microsoft is forcing all future OS versions to be 64-bit only. Apparently, only the 64-bit modes of Intel/AMD CPUs are capable of enforcing DRM effectively. HD-DVD content will only be released to 64-bit versions of Windows. You gotta love the future.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[DECS]

Cringely is hardly an authority on what has happened or will happen in the tech industry. Among other far fetched ideas, he also wrote that Google was setting up massive data centers around the world to translate the web in to Flash on the fly; he thought the Apple TV had a USB port so it could be used to "teleconference movies," somehow using a USB cam to do teleconferencing with grandma and then facilitate virtually watching movies together with extended family over the web; he even wrote that he suspected Microsoft Bob was "named after him," despite the fact that "Robert X. Cringely" is just the pen name of Mark Stephens, not really a Bob (although perhaps equally infamous in a chucking sort of way).

Patent sharing agreements mean companies won't sue each other over the use of certain patented ideas. It does not convey "rights to a API" or other implementations of those patents. Entering into a patent sharing agreement with Apple would not give you rights to Mac OS X, the source code to iTunes, nor distribution rights to the iPhone's operating system. Similarly, a patent sharing deal with Microsoft would not give you access to duplicate Windows.

Recall that when Microsoft offered Apple a licensing deal on Windows NT, the company turned Microsoft down, even during the midst of its OS crisis, and began looking at the early developer betas of BeOS, which couldn't even print and didn't support multiple users. The "Windows API" is hardly a pinnacle of technology.

Debunking Cringely only requires two brain cells and a few molecules of the neurotransmitter of your choice. Reading his column is like watching a Nicholas Cage movie: an overwhelming sense of "Why did this happen?"

If you're more interested in rational reasons why Apple would NEVER add the "Windows API" to Mac OS X, you can read the Red Box Myth. Here's free ones for starters: WTF good would 1995's Win32 be as Microsoft actively tries to abandon it for .NET/WinFX? And why would Apple spend its resources trying to deliver Microsoft's past when it's doing a pretty decent job delivering its own, superior, portable, proven API of the future in Cocoa? And why bother implementing Win32 given that commercial developers have already delivered a WINE environment good enough to port Windows games to the Mac, and third party virtual machines can already run Windows apps on the Mac desktop?

The entire idea of Win32 in Mac OS X is absurd on every level.

The Red Box Myth

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[JBv]

Not only perfect, but at least 4x faster and at 400% more intuitive than your own intuition.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Gutsy owners are doing what?

I've upgraded my personal workstation, my laptop, and my workstation at work from Feisty to Gutsy. All of them are working just fine.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

I upgraded a bunch of clients to 10.5, to my present dismay (including my wife)

You upgraded your wife to 10.5? Awesome! Time Machine alone should make it worth every penny!

--
captcha: subtlety

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Amiga Trombone]

There IS good of course, some of the new features I actually dismissed turn out to be awesome, like, not willing to downgrade back to 10.4 awesome, so I'm going to tough it out. But if I had to turn back time I'd wait until some time next year to order my copy.

Agree. I upgraded my personal laptop, but for the one I use for work I installed Leopard on a USB attached drive just to make sure all the things I need are going to work. Mostly they do, but something about the "feel" of Leopard still seems rough around the edges. I think I'll wait for a couple of point releases before the work machine gets the Leopard treatment....

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Silas is back]

I act as a moderator of a big german mac-board, and I've not heard of one single Leopard-user switching back to Tiger. In fact, most of the Leo-crashing-problems stem from people using older versions of "hack-the-OS" - apps like application enhancer (APE).

Leopard is stable for the majority of all its users.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[gEvil (beta)]

As it is now I jumped the gun on ordering and I upgraded a bunch of clients to 10.5

Remind me to never come to you for any sort of consulting. This is just plain negligent.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Nullav]

That still doesn't address the privacy concerns, and there's also a plethora of applications that are as/more power hungry than gaming. That aside, why on earth would I want to spend $200-600 at once to play every game for a specific system instead of spending $50-100 only when I find a game I like that I can't play?
And I'm sure the companies providing access to these servers would find as many ways to nickel and dime the users as possible.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Fri13]

"I think the current releases from three OS vendors suck right now: Vista, Leopard, and Gutsy."

You mean Microsoft and Apple?

Canonical dont make own OS, they use GNU/Linux and package it to one form to give users what they want or canonical thinks they need.

Microsoft has own OS, Vista and XP (now) and Apple has own too Tiger and Leopard. Canonical just have GNU/Linux and own distribution from it.

Canonical cant control what kind version Gnome comes out because they dont own Gnome, they cant control what kind kernel there is coming out, because they dont own Linux and they cant control what kind status Debian unstable branche is because they dont own Debian development.

Apple and Microsoft is simple controlling all these because they own them and they are their own OS system what comes with few their applications.

Canonical just dont own Ubuntu anyway, just it brand 'Ubuntu' and what Ubuntu can control, is what packages they take from 'GNU/Linux world'.

Yes, Ubuntu is OS but it's not different OS for other distributions like Vista is for Leopard. Ubuntu is different OS for Vista and Leopard but it is same OS for SUSE and Debian. Unless you can proof that exm. Firefox is needed to build with Ubuntu support in it to get it work or Gnome is Ubuntus own desktop and you cant install anything outside of Ubuntu repositories (exm from source) etc etc?

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to hear all your troubles with Gutsy, but I had a great experience upgrading (I am relatively new to Linux, but using Feisty for about 4 months). A VERY embarrassing user error on my behalf meant I had to do a full, clean install of Gutsy just after I got everything working, but on the plus side, I had TWO smooth install experiences with Gusty (Kubuntu, though, not Ubuntu). I have enabled Compiz and it is working like a charm (only suspend/hibernate not working with Compiz enabled. Anything else, like the multi media card reader not working doesn't bother me)...

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[FST777]

About Linux on laptops: I've recently installed Linux (openSUSE) on a bunch of them, and there is no single piece of hardware that doesn't work, apart from suspending to RAM on our HP nx9030s (we also have some other brands and types, and they work flawlessly). Linux has the reputation, yes, but I think that reputation is outdated. In particular, 3D acceleration on these HPs (Intel video) is infinitely better than anything close on Windows.

(I've also had FreeBSD on some of those machines. Worked OK too, but no wireless networking joy nor 3D goodness)

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just use the PS3's browser - it's quite acceptable for many tasks. Add a BT keyboard and mouse and you're good to go with Google Apps.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Zhe Mappel]

Remind me to never come to you for any sort of consulting.

Sure. Let me just put that reminder in Leopard's iCal and, wait, what's this? Hmm, I think there's some sort of probl

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[jsebrech]

Privacy: trusting the employees of a web application is no different from trusting the employees of a desktop application. What you need is to purchase from companies with clear privacy management policies, not pretend like somehow you can avoid the issue entirely by doing anything less than not having internet access at all.

Power: irrelevant. PC's have been fast enough for desktop apps since the early 90's. Word 2 was as useful a word processor for average people as word 2007. A web application can be as fast as it needs to be.

Security: same deal was with privacy, only that the risk of exploits is lower when it's the vendor that's updating your system for you. Most people don't correctly keep up with updates in their applications (even if they do in the OS), and most desktop applications have abysmal security precautions (worse than web apps).

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Wdomburg]

I gave up on Ubuntu when an upgrade to Fiesty Fawn completely hosed my install (audio, x11, pam and acpi all broken to some degree). The comments from coworkers regarding Gutsy Gibbon don't convince me they've fixed their QA processes. For example: "I would make a snarky comment about linux, but ubuntu is less stable than xp on this laptop." and "Note to self: Never ever ever ever install Ubuntu ever again."

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Bert64]

While I agree that there's no reason for a base install of Leopard on an Apple machine to exhibit problems... The average user will also install a lot of non-apple software on their machine and possibly try to connect some non-apple peripherals.
None of the machines running leopard in the apple store seemed to be crashing, and there were 50+ machines on display.

Of the 3 leopard machines i have, only one has crashed, and it's happened once. This was due to plugging in a blackberry. When i upgraded the system from Tiger, i had installed "pocket mac for blackberry" which includes a kernel driver for the device, and this caused leopard to crash. Reinstalling pocketmac cleared up the problems and it's worked since.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Bert64]

Client-server models make sense for "average" business users and "average" home users...
There will obviously be exceptions, like businesses who do heavy video manipulation or home users who play lots of games, but for the vast majority of people who browse the web and write text documents a thin client model is far more efficient.

As for privacy...
I know many home users who browse the web and write email, do they care that their emails are travelling via someone else's servers? Not really, because they do that already.
Employees at a company are there to work, not to write angry rants about their boss. Most companies have employment contracts stating that anything passing through the company computer systems is company property etc, and that you should have no expectation of privacy. You should only be using the company systems to do company business, and it is thus the company's responsibility to ensure that the servers on which it's stored are secure.
And funny you should bring up paris hilton, correct me if i'm wrong but i thought her address book was stolen because she still used the default pin or something... But even if it was hacked, the server was owned/controlled by the telco she used... If you hack the telco it doesnt matter if your address book is stored on the server, you can retrieve the call logs to see who someone's been calling, and you can even snoop on the conversations.
If your concerned about privacy, don't use internet/telephony service provided by someone else, or at the very least encrypt all your communications. The trouble with this is, you'l have a very limited subset of people you can talk with!

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[cp.tar]

I act as a moderator of a big german mac-board, and I've not heard of one single Leopard-user switching back to Tiger. In fact, most of the Leo-crashing-problems stem from people using older versions of "hack-the-OS" - apps like application enhancer (APE).

Leopard is stable for the majority of all its users.

I have some issues with Leopard.

My networking, for one, is all messed up: I'd had several locations set up, but nothing really works anymore.

My college wireless network uses WPA2 Enterprise.
It took a little while to set up under Tiger, but at least once set up, it worked. After upgrading to Leopard, however, the network is recognized as WPA Enterprise, which doesn't work. And even when I tell it that it should a) use WPA2 Enterprise and b) remember the network, after a reboot everything's back the way it used to be.
Equally annoying, it plainly refuses to remember my password for this network.

OTOH, my home wireless network is remembered just fine, password and all. Not WPA2 Enterprise, though.

However, I had to delete my old location when I got WLAN at home (just a few days ago, actually): I used to use DSL, but the new network dialog doesn't appear to allow me to delete the old account. I deleted the data, but it came back; finally I removed the entire location.

I'm not even sure locations work, at least in the way I understood they should.

I'm considering a clean install of Leopard, to see if it's just an upgrade issue; it's the old networks I seem to have trouble with.

Oh, and anoher peeve: I told Disk Utility to reformat one partition on a hard disk with two NTFS partitions with data on them and one empty ReiserFS partition. It reformatted all partitions, and even repartitioned the drive - the nameless partition was d1s2, but after the reformat, it was d1s5.

I may have done something wrong myself, though, as I was distraught by my Windows install dying just yesterday for no apparent reason (except a possible drive failure).

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[dlZ]

But that's the great benefit of using a free (as in freedom) OS.

I used Ubuntu for a while (on my home computer), decided that while it was nice, it wasn't what I wanted. I switched to Sabayon, and I'm happier with that. The switch was painless - all the apps I used on Ubuntu were there in Sabayon, my data was all as usable with the new OS as it had been with the old, and all my hardware still works fine.

The cost of switching between Linux distros is so low that users can abandon any distro that's lagging, then switch back if the vendors improve. It's where real competition is driving real improvements.

I've been using the same home directory for close to 10 years on different incarnations of my main desktop. It's been moved to different drives, restored from backups, moved across quite a few different distros, but it's still the same one. The last time I touched some of the files is sort of scary, actually. I wish I had a copy of all my files from my original Slackware install in 93, actually. I know I can move my files from copy of Windows to Windows, sure, but it is damn nice having all my settings come across without actually doing anything. And I don't believe there is an easy way to do that without 3rd party software (I may be wrong and Vista may do that, I'm not a Windows user.)

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[TheRaven64]

I think the current releases from three OS vendors suck right now On the plus side, the latest FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris releases are excellent. It's good to have choice.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Bert64]

What exactly are the privacy concerns?
Companies can host the servers themselves, and have their employees access them from thin clients.
Home users often don't deal with much that's very private. A lot of people simply write things to email them out straight away, so your already entrusting that data to someone else's server. And as the previous post said, a p3 1ghz is more than sufficient to satisfy most users' needs with local apps anyway.

What we need are really small, low powered and quiet systems, more than sufficient to act as a dumb terminal, and easily capable of editing typical documents locally as well for those concerned about privacy. An ARM based system would be more than sufficient. You could also make small laptops with really good battery life.

And as i said in an earlier post, this is more than sufficient for the average user. Sure there will always be exceptions, as you said some applications which are far more power hungry, but most people never run such applications.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[orasio]

But I'm not saying for a moment that people are or should leave Ubuntu for Suse, or even Ubuntu for Kubuntu. I am saying I know several (not including myself) who are leaving Ubuntu Gutsy for Ubuntu Feisty, the previous version. That's a serious wake-up call to Canonical.

I wasn't tying to side-track the issue into a Linux flame war. I was trying to point out yet another similarity. TFA asserted that Leopard is the new Vista. From what I see, Gutsy is the new Vista, as well. Vista, Vista, everywhere. I don't think that is fair. Vista is a once in 4 years release. The only thing comparable is Hardy Heron, the next LTS release, or at least Dapper Drake.
Gutsy Gibbon, as you say in your original post, is the release when they want to test everything. It was tested, but not by lots and lots of people. This is the right time. Of course some people will go back to Feisty, but it has nothing in common with Vista. It wasn't promoted in the same way, and it's as bleeding edge as a release can be. You can expect issues. I don't think it's a wake up call to Canonical, in the sense that they are failing in their release strategy. The fact that there are issues is a sign that they need to work a lot to get the LTS release working great for everybody.
I wouldn't go public with compiz, in a LTS release, it makes sense to do it before, so some people can test it before.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[TheRaven64]

No they didn't. Tiger shipped with X11 based on X.org 6.8, Leopard with a release based on 7.2. I've been running developer snapshots of 7.2 on Tiger for a while, but it was nice to have a properly supported one. Also, Xephyr seems to work nicely on Leopard which is a huge improvement over Xnest.

There are a number of UI regressions in Leopard, but only one issue I would consider should have been a show-stopper. If you upgrade from Tiger with File Vault enabled then the first time you log out then your home directory becomes inaccessible and you can't log back in again. See my journal for how to recover from this; I've wasted over five hours of my life fixing this since I upgraded and I consider this completely unacceptable.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats great to hear. In your test group of three, there were no problems. I'm personally relieved.

Hear that everyone? Gutsy is working flawlessly now, proceed with your upgrades!

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[jadrian]

Treating Ubuntu as _the_ linux distro is quite an exageration. Take a look at OpenSUSE and its new verison 10.3, try it out or read the reviews. They did an excelent job.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[arminw]

.....Client-server models make sense for "average" business users and "average" home users.......

Why not go back to the mainframe-terminal model? IT will have come full circle and the PC as will become extinct. Instead of a serial line, we'll have fast fiber links from warehouse sized computer systems with a billion CPUs and 50,000 terabytes storage serving every terminal on earth. Users will only be allowed to see, do and interact has the administrative overlords see fit. It will be a very secure, safe, controlled way of ensuring ironclad control over all information.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[LKM]

I know most people disagree, but I also think Network Prefs was better in Tiger. For example, in Leopard, FTP and Windows sharing is hidden, and there's no easy to way to figure out the address you're required to use on Windows to access the Mac.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Bert64]

Can't say that i've seen any performance hits from going 64bit, if anything performance has improved (more registers etc).. Tho admittedly the memory usage has increased. Perhaps there could be some issues related to compiler optimizations tho, 64bit being newer has not had so much work done on it.
It's not the same on other architectures, where the 32bit mode had enough registers to start with...
There is however no reason you can't run a 64bit kernel and 32bit usermode apps. You gain the ability to use more memory, and you save memory on the majority of your userland apps which don't need more than 2gb. You can still run 64bit apps if you need a large dataset, and if a 32bit app goes haywire and tries to eat all your memory it can't.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[ozmanjusri]

Since this theory is not unique to the poster, he isn't "obviously making shit up".

You're right about that, but it's obviously got the fanbois worked up. They're modding me to oblivion, for some reason.

A lot of the speculation is coming from the guys over at Wine. They found PE loading capabilities in Leopard that wasn't there in Tiger. Further dissection shows that Apple is hiding references to *Win* and *PE* in the dll, which means it's not an accidental inclusion.

The moderation of my original post is interesting too. I don't think there's anything particularly provocative about it, yet it's attracting "troll" mods. Strange.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Bert64]

But canonical are free to continue distributing older versions of packages if the new ones aren't up to scratch. There's no reason for people to be switching back to a previous version.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Night Goat]

- First day of use I nearly lost my keychain, and it's still not 100% right.

I thought I was the only one who was experiencing this! For some reason, the OS always wants to access the "login" keychain which I don't know the password to as opposed to my user keychain. I had to basically delete the keychain and lose all the stored passwords. Now, I keep a copy of all of my important passwords in a GPG-encrypted text file, but imagine the poor sap who doesn't. Yeah, there are some nasty bugs in Leopard, all right.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[MistrBlank]

I've started using Gutsy... it's only fixed problems I've had with wireless and on top of that has been more stable than my feisty box was. I use Leopard and I didn't even reinstall, I upgraded and I have yet to have a crash. The only thing dissappointing to me is the bluetooth stack still sucks and they killed network drive options for Time Machine. Oh well, Time machine still works for what I need it to. The thing that pisses me off is that people start bashing OS X and Vista (and evidently Gutsy now too) for buggy releases, yet the OS's they're based from were BUGGY AS HELL TO BEGIN WITH. Not one of the predecessors to any of these OSes was less buggy. The issue with Vista isn't just it's buggy nature, it's the unsupported nature after a year release, it's the major annoyances that were introduced as feature, is the intrusion of mass DRM, and it's the major lack of worthwhile features (other than DX10 for gamers) while providing a slower environment. Oh, and I can assure you that Compiz is NOT enabled by default on all systems for Gutsy, in fact the Desktop is faster on my work Latitude than it was running Feisty. Besides, you're using Linux. Boot to a prompt, edit your configs and be done with it.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[cloakable]

Or take that 2GHz, 1GB RAM desktop you're using, and use that as a personal terminal server? Most modern hardware is hopelessly overpowered for the desktop task.

For example, I'm typing this on my 1.13 GHz laptop, scaled back to 733 MHz on cpufreq, and I'm still only using ~8% CPU for Aero AIO on superkaramba, Konqueror with 7 tabs open, and Amarok playing. This is on KDE too. Using 162MB RAM out of 256 though. But still, I could probably run a terminal server for a couple of desktops on this, and this isn't exactly high end hardware.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Provocateur]

At least Canonical has a reason for it to suck though

Might be OT: Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly did you mean by this? Was the release intended as a development release similar to kernels that end in an odd number? Kind of like, 'Use at your own risk, but do help us search for bugs'. I haven't been following Ubuntu closely enough, so the statement could be misinterpreted as having a double standard.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

>The difference is that Ubuntu is free, of course.

Yeah, free as in "need lots of free time to get it working".

I went back to XP - it's faster on my laptop, and there are a lot more games that work properly.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[encoderer]

No, No, just install Gutsy Gibbon.... I mean... Barack Obama... and you'll never look back ;)

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[RxScram]

My personal preference, and it is a strong one, is that I will not touch console games... when I have used them, I have found the controller to be difficult to understand, slow to respond, lacking in fine-control, and in all other ways lacking. In addition, I get dramatically better resolution on my monitor than on my TV, and I happen to enjoy it more.

In other words... not every person thinks that an xbox or PS3 is a viable solution.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[aclarke]

Umm, what's "/me support" in iChat?

I use Adium anyway but I'm just curious.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[MrPerfekt]

I'm with you on most of that.

My experiences are that the new features are awesome (even ones I didn't think I'd use) but stability has been thrown to the dogs.

Specifically, wake from sleep on my MBP has been completely hosed and works maybe half the time. I've resorted to simply shutting down every day which as of Leopard takes a while. Like a few minutes a while with a blacked out spinny wheel rotating away over my desktop background before it actually shuts off.

  I've had similar issues with my Mac Pro with trying to shutdown and also with sometimes the unlock dialog not appearing when waking from screensaver (not sleep, just the screensaver/screensleep). I have yet to break more than a week uptime on my Mac Pro with Leopard.

Those stability issues are a big deal and what's concerning to me is that they worked fine in Tiger. I also noted other Mac Pro owners with Radeon X1900s were having graphical glitches just like me immediately after upgrading. I dealt with it for a while assuming that 10.5.1 would fix it when it came out but it didn't. In the end, a firmware upgrade buried on Apple's site (and not presented in Software Update) released about a week before Leopard fixed the issue.

I'm just ranting now, but just figured I'd share my Leopard experience. All told, it's better than running Windows. Or some hosey, alliterated Linux distro. ;)

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't make lame excuses for them. There more to maintaining a distro than slapping a bunch of packages together and putting your name and pretty little logo on it.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Jaysyn]

I can't stand console games. I don't play games I can't take apart & modify.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Spankophile]

> The difference is that Ubuntu is free, of course.

And this is why linux will never win the desktop of corporations. Anytime there is criticism, it's too easy to just throw up your hands and say: "eh? whaddaya want, it's free"

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Cro Magnon]

Agreed. They can also patch Linux or Gnome or any other problem package if neccesary.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Daengbo]

I'll put it bluntly. They didn't fix enough known bugs before release date. They shipped with a bunch of known problems for wireless (which worked on Feisty) and other bugs I was personally involved in the discussion of. The entire Real Link series of wireless drivers broke. There were workarounds. They could have used one.

There's a relatively simple bug which involves changing a .po file. If you have Gutsy or Feisty, try yanking out a USB key without unmounting. It will warn you to use the "eject" option first, only there's no option anywhere to eject a USB key -- only to "unmount" it. How will a new user ever be able to follow the advice given? There was a .po change offered and discussion for two months, but the bug still shipped. That's crazy.

Don't get the impression that I'm anti-Ubuntu or Linux. You can read my posting history or visit my blog and realize quickly that that's not true. There were a lot of known issues that shipped in Gutsy, though. They didn't fall through the cracks. They just weren't fixed. Canonical needs to wake up and realize that that shouldn't happen.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[CastrTroy]

I'm a Mandriva user, and I have to say, I'm kind of relieved that Mandriva isn't the only one with wireless issues. If you're looking for a nice desktop distro, then try Mandriva. It's not perfect, but if you're that unhappy with Ubuntu, then it's worth a try. By default there is no Compiz, but it can be installed quite easily. They also have the option of Metisse, which I really like a lot more than Compiz. I personally think that Ubuntu isn't all that great, and that it gets way too much press. Mandriva is at least as good, or better in my opinion, and people should really try it out if they feel they aren't getting what they want out of their chosen distro.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[fatrat]

To go back to the old suspend mode, rather than the new disk based one:

biber:~ 502: pmset -g | grep hibernatemode
hibernatemode 3
biber:~ 503: sudo pmset -a hibernatemode 0
biber:~ 504: ls -lh /var/vm/sleepimage
-rw------T 1 root wheel 2G Oct 19 09:39 /var/vm/sleepimage
biber:~ 505: sudo rm /var/vm/sleepimage

Frees up 2G of disk space as well. My macbook pro has been happy sleeping again since I reverted.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Daengbo]

I didn't imply that Ubuntu was the only Linux release. I said "from three OS vendors." Let's be serious, though. Ubuntu got 54% of the desktops in the most recent Desktop Linux survey. That makes it important. I'm sure Suse was great. I bet PCLinuxOS rocked. Gutsy, however, didn't.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[bentcd]

I find it hard to believe anyone would defend the Tiger preference pane, let alone prefer it compared to the Leopard one. I'm still on Tiger and even without seeing the Leopard one: gimme gimme! Anything but the current confusing mess! :-)

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[bentcd]

But if I had to turn back time I'd wait until some time next year to order my copy. Wait a second. I thought Leopard came with a time machine? Yes, but it can only take you back to when you first activated the time machine, no sooner.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Daengbo]

I meant that Gutsy shoved too many new features in with the intention of shaking out the problems before the next LTS. It sucks. It's wrong to ship a bunch of known problems that could be easily fixed in a production release, even if it's not an LTS version. They did, however, have a reason for shoving that much stuff in (FWIW, they did the same thing before Dapper 6.06). Vista cut out most of its announced features. I know that Apple at least cut out the network option for Time Machine, but they may have cut more. Neither of those OS vendors were looking to the current OS as a beta for the next release. There's no double standard.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Daengbo]

I have no real loyalty to distros, but I use Ubuntu because it works pretty well and I support a few friend who use it so I need to be knowledgable about it. I used to use Mandrake (98-2000? Maybe.) I've been using Gnome long enough, though, that I prefer it to KDE now. To others -- No, I don't want to have an argument over it. I've used just about all of the WMs and DEs in the last ten years.

I'm not trying to give Ubuntu a bad time: I just expected the experience of Gutsy to go forward from Feisty, not backward.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[mdwh2]

I know many home users who browse the web and write email, do they care that their emails are travelling via someone else's servers? Not really, because they do that already.

True, though I think there's still a difference between emails, and every private document you have, including personal/private material that they wouldn't email.

Also, one hopes that in most cases email is not kept around - yes we can't guarantee it, but this is likely if only because of the costs of doing so.

Consider the opposition to suggested Government laws about requiring ISPs to store email, or Google's "your email is never deleted".

If your concerned about privacy, don't use internet/telephony service provided by someone else, or at the very least encrypt all your communications. The trouble with this is, you'l have a very limited subset of people you can talk with!

I only have to tell the person I want to send encrypted info to download PGP or whatever, and thankfully the people I want to talk with aren't complete muppets, and can manage to do that.

Also, this is another argument about why email is different - people take the risk of using email despite privacy concerns, because there isn't much choice if you want to talk to people. But it doesn't then follow that you should put all of your information online, when in that case, private alternatives do exist.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[mdwh2]

Yes, but most people switching to the NT kernel went from Me to XP, not from 9x to 2000, which is presumably what he means by the leap.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[paralaxcreations]

I don't know about you (well I guess I do ;)), but Gutsy has been MUCH easier to work with than Feisty.

In Feisty, I had to give up on wireless with my USB wireless adapter, and run about 100ft of cable (and hide it so the girlfriend doesn't get put off by the wires) after fiddling with my USB for over a month- the best I was able to get was intermittent connections at best, that would get completely wiped out every update.

With Gutsy, I was able to connect immediately, but it would drop after 15-20 minutes. A quick google search and I fixed it.

Fusion is working much better than Compiz or Beryl ever did in Feisty (still a bug or two regarding snapping + wobbly windows)

The only problem I still have is with my Canon MP160...actually if I recall correctly, I fixed that too...again with better results than in Feisty (but that may be because I was teaching myself how to do it in Feisty, and this time it was much more retracing the steps...though I do seem to recall having less dependency issues this time around)

of course, YMMV...but I for one am LOVING Gutsy more than any previous release.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Simon Carr]

I don't know what's going on with your machine, but I've upgraded several to Leopard with none of the odd bugs you appear to have. My pre-Leopard release of Cyberduck works fine, and continues to do so. I also use X (rarely) and that works.

Regarding the Cyberduck thing it was the interaction between Cyberduck and external apps that Cyberduck calls to edit files that was zorked. Actually using Cyberduck to transfer files still worked, but editing on the fly was completely gone. As for X, my Gimp is busted along with a couple of other compiled apps.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[mabhatter654]

In my experience the Tiger-Leopard update is better than the XP-Vista one. More software that was under Tiger works well under Leopard... I think the fact that the issues are small makes it worse, not better because there's a large group of programs that "almost" work like they did. If that's your profession though, you're out cold and "workarounds" don't fly. Also, I think a great deal higher percent of mac owners upgraded to Leopard than XP owners to Vista.

Add to that proprietary companies have STILL not fixed bugs in their Vista software for a whole YEAR vs. 1 month for Leopard and Macs are WAY ahead. I installed on launch day and if I had held out till the weekend, I probably would wait. But on my system almost nothing broke and a few bugs were fixed.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Provocateur]

Yes, but it can only take you back to when you first activated the time machine, no sooner.

Screw Sarah Connor then, I guess.

Oh, wait...

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Kaffien]

either way, it's supposed to 'just work'. I guess every OS can have growing pains. As the guys from dead troll sung, eeeeevery OS Sucks! PS. I'm still waiting for them to switch their adds to "Hey Windows It's me MacOS"

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Greyfox]

I've found that the machines are very prone to heat-related instability. My Mac Pro desktop ran fine until I made it try to push 3D, then it started crashing so much I thought I was running Windows. The forums are full of people with the same problem and in every case it seems like it's an overheating video card. I upgraded from the ATI in there to the lower-end nvidia card and it's been solid ever since. Sure the frame rate drops every so often but at least I can play a game without worrying about it crashing at some crucial point. Plus I don't have to spin all the fans in the case up to the point where it sounds like a jet engine sitting next to me. I wish there were a higher end nvidia solution available though. I really don't ever want to put another piece of ATI hardware in any of my systems.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[integral-fellow]

Check out Zonbu.com They are making green/low-power, silent, inexpensive thin clients that are managed from the company. They include 50GB of encrypted Amazon S3 space, instead of a hard drive. I'm interested in modifications to include a VPN and back procedure for other computers on my network. I'm not affiliated with them. I think it's about time we get off the supercomputer for grandma hamster wheel. Cheers, fellow

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[hesiod]

> my 1.13 GHz laptop, scaled back to 733 MHz on cpufreq

Just out of curiosity, why do people underclock processors (excluding flaky motherboards/CPUs or something)?

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[smilindog2000]

I've measured this over the years at various times. I just did it again on my Intel Core Duo laptop. Here's what I found for our product: With object reference size of 32-bits, running in 64-bit mode, memory usage was 1111.2 meg, and runtime was 2:22. With 64-bit pointers, it ran in 2:25, and 1873.2 meg. Compiled in 32-bit mode and 32-bit pointers, it ran in 2:25, and used 1111.2 meg.

So, at least for Core Duo for our product, 64-bit vs 32-bit has minimal impact on speed, and a huge impact on memory usage. Good to know... I'm surprised I didn't see more of a speed improvement with the memory-saving mode (32-bit object references), but it probably has to due with details of the cache design.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed that the network tool was gone in Leopard. I was looking to assign a name to my printer. Then I realized that Leopard (maybe it was there in Tiger, too) now respects /etc/hosts for naming things on your LAN. I like this quite a lot.

Nothing major broke for me in the Leopard upgrade, but then I'm not a big user of OSX customizations. Well, aside from Toast and its support for my dual layer external DVD burner, which was already hosed by 10.4.7 or so. I've regressed to Toast 6 in the interim.

One feature I really like is the mail program recognizing addresses, which gives you the option to pull up maps.google.com directly. Nice.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anzhr]

The first Alpha of Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) just came out. As the LTS, the infirmities of Feisty and Gutsy should all be worked out. As for myself, I've had no problems at all in the upgrade from 7.04 to 7.10 but then I only install from the repositories.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[cecil_turtle]

Agreed, I have a newer laptop and Feisty didn't support some of the hardware (specifically audio), so I've been running Gutsy since the early alpha's and it's been fine. I wouldn't say it's been a step backwards from Feisty. Edgy was the one where they did some serious updates and forced a lot of things in early to "shake them out", not Gutsy.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[jargoone]

Just out of curiosity, why do people underclock processors (excluding flaky motherboards/CPUs or something)? Increased battery life.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[andreasmarcel]

The laptop will drain the battery slower, also keeping the temperature down.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[MrPerfekt]

Thanks for this. I'll give it a try today!

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Just Some Guy]

Umm, what's "/me support" in iChat?

I'm guessing it's the old IRC-workalike feature where you type:

/me is tired.

and it sends:

Just Some Guy is tired.

Nothing big, but still something you get used to having around. Having said that, I still hate iChat. Metacontacts, Apple! Metacontacts! Who wants to have a separate contact list for each account they log into?

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Altus]

Interesting. I had major issues with wake from sleep under tiger but haven't had any problems since switching to leopard.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[skarphace]

90% of what people do with the internet is use the internet.

Really? I find this statistic hard to believe.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[e4g4]

Generally problems with remembering wireless networks and the passwords that go with them are solved by going in and removing all of the "Preferred" networks from Sys Preferences > Network, then connecting to the networks again and clicking the "remember this network". I've seen problems like that since Jaguar, and that particular fix has always worked for me.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Thank you. Its somewhat rare on slashdot for someone to concede the point. And my point was just that rather than his "making shit up" there were and still are people talking about this.

Now in terms of whether Apple should, or would, or even could... I never went there. As a user I find VMWare sufficent to run WinXP under Ubuntu on a linux box, or Ubuntu in VMWare on my WinXP laptop. However, since you bring it up: Running win32 natively (with wine, say, or if Apple did a "wine on steroids") does have uses, though, which are exactly the uses that have me running WinXP in VMWare on Ubuntu. Since I have MSDNAA licenses to MS products VMWare already "just works", though. But I can at least imagine that it could be more seamless. That would be nice.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[stdarg]

Some people do it in order to run a fan-less system so there is less noise.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Agreed that Cringley isn't authoritative, but I am willing to admit I occasionally make it over and do enjoy the creative, imaginative, flights of fancy. If thinking is allowed (encouraged even), then a forum for interesting dreams is not to far behind.

In terms of "WTF good would 1995's Win32 be as Microsoft actively tries to abandon it for .NET/WinFX", I'd like to suggest that while the .net framework seems interesting (and well liked by people that I've seen who actually used it) it currently seems that even these people are not interested in moving from WinXP to Vista. MSDNAA free copies of Vista Business lead to a lot of Vista downloads and installations last year. I'm unaware of even one of those installatins that lasted more than a month. .net in the free to MSDNAA members downloaded VS2005 on WinXP seems to be the way .net is used at least around this (admittedly academic) neck of the woods.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[holophrastic]

None of this is surprising is to me. Apple has always been good as a high-end ownthesoftware ownthehardware serveasingleuser company.
Now that Leopard is trying to compete as a desktop for PC users used to installing random carp software and shoving in random carp hardware,
pushing all of the buttons, and interacting with other machines, Apple's got a lot to learn about playing in the real world.

The more I think about it, the more I want to point to FireFox as the instigating factor. Now that FireFox is a quasi-acceptable browser alternative
to IE in that it's more than adequate as a primary browser, Mac users for the first time have complete access to the web. With all of the various
random carp plugins and extensions, OS X has real vulnerabilities to deal with for the first time ever.

Making random carp software run on random carp hardware with random carp bugs and random carp vulnerabilities is not something that Apple
can pick up in a single year.

Wait, your favourite Linux distro is next. Windows doesn't crash because a fresh empty installation of the OS and office suite are unstable.
It crashes because Joe's software is written by Joe, and Jill installed it.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Greatmoose]

The fact is, Leopard IS broken. We have several on our IN shelf right now with the exact same problem the author is decribing. And most annoying to me (I do wireless for a university) is that 802.1X is STILL broken, even in 10.5.1. That's a YOOOOOGE problem. It worked just fine and dandy in 10.3 and 10.4. Something has gone horribly wrong...

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[JCSoRocks]

There's far more to computing than just Word. I think it's ironic that the slashdot group, being a tech savvy bunch, assume that everyone else just uses Word and their favorite web browser. There are plenty of people using power hungry applications. Have you ever rendered anything? Played around with an image the size of a poster in Photoshop with a high enough DPI for print? Mixed your own audio tracks? Made a movie? Used CAD software? Grandma aside, users are getting smarter and more and more people are using these kinds of programs. If all someone wants is just a typewriter with spell check then great, give them something that's 10 years old and be done with it. I don't think that's going to satisfy the average user though.

Woah... trusting web app employees is VERY different than trusting desktop app employees. There's a huge difference between trusting someone not to look at MY data housed on THEIR servers than there is to trust that someone didn't write some kind of back door code that allows them to see the contents of my hard drive. Firewall, virus protection, and various other monitoring tools all give me the ability to know exactly what's happening on my computer. I don't have that on their servers. I can't see if someone is trying to look at my files on their machines.
Additionally, any desktop company releasing a piece of software like that (Sony rootkit anyone!?) would immediately get slammed by the public. The evidence would be right in the code - you can't hide from that. That's much different than an employee at some data center casually browsing through everyone's files. Good luck proving they did it and good luck getting the company to admit it even if they know that they did it.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Zaurus]

Check your sources before you contradict someone who knows.

Yes, they did use XFree86 for Tiger and Xorg for Leopard. Ben Byer's the Apple Engineer who did it. He explains it all right here:

http://lists.apple.com/archives/x11-users/2007/Nov/msg00208.html

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"The moderation of my original post is interesting too. I don't think there's anything particularly provocative about it, yet it's attracting "troll" mods. Strange."

Agreed, and interesting to the point that it deserves its own topic thread. It seems to me to be similar to the anti-mono perspective (not the one based on fear of legal land mines, but rather the one based on market mind share). When I was a Physics grad student, I was interested in Computational Science and so took grad applied math classes that met my elective requirements. My dept chair commented, "Well, but once you've made it into the Light (i.e, Physics), we'd be doing you a disservice if we didn't discourage you from slipping back into Darkness (i.e., anything other than the Physics way). It is a mime-war?

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

What? No it didn't. Tiger released with XFree86 4.3. Leopard has X.org.

Granted, X.org 6.8 might have been a fork of 4.4RCsomething or other, but they're still different releases and different branches.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Sancho]

If you read through the article, it's not just about crashes. He also complains about "fixing" an interface that didn't need fixing. That's one of my biggest complaints with Vista--and frankly, with every new Microsoft release. They changed the location of settings between Win2k, WinXP, and Vista. They constantly change the Start menu. Everything changes, but it doesn't seem to be for the better. It seems to be simply to differentiate the OS from its predecessor.

He complains about other things, but I don't know that I agree with them. His beef with glitz, for example: Vista went overboard with the glitz, in order to compete with OS X, whereas OS X's glitz has always seemed (and still seems) muted. Simple, unobtrusive, and nice looking. And it didn't change significantly from Tiger.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[G Fab]

The real limitation is that the internet can only handle so much transmission of data at once. We need a faster backbone before my ideas are possible.

As far as data security goes, the most personal stuff I've got is in my gmail account. My most security sensitive information is in my credit card's online bill.

Millions of people accept the security risk. In fact, I don't think most of them even realize or care about the depth of the security risk,

For those who do, it's not as though Linux or Windows would go away... they'd just continually slow down in advancement (as windows and apple OS already is because of new focusing on appliances like the iphone of 360).

You're not raining on my parade. I actually agree with you about these problems. What if my personal computer fit in my pocket and someone stole it? That would really suck! What device most resembles that risk? The popular iphone, of course, with all your pictures and cookies saving passwords on websites such as gmail. And what about credit cards? Someone could steal my credit card and cause some major problems for me... but millions people don't use cash instead. Should these systems need to be biometrically secure? I think we'll start to see clever ways of keeping these systems secure if stolen.

Remember, you're just talking about hurdles to overcome. They probably will be overcome. I'm inclined to agree that this may not be the best idea, but look around. PS3s are competing with computers. iphones are too, PDAs never took off, but if you make a cool PDA and call it an iphone, computer illiterate people buy it up.

I'm not saying that's going to be good for security, I'm just explaining why Apple and MS are not as focused monetarily on producing OSs.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Jeremi]

I'm not trying to crap on your parade, it just seems like ever since the .com boom people have been saying it more and more and I just don't see it as being a good idea.

I agree with you 100% for home use. For offices, OTOH, thin clients may be a good idea. You shouldn't have any expectations of privacy on your office machine anyway (it is the company's machine, after all) and you definitely shouldn't be keeping your intimate videos there :^). The office servers should definitely be owned and operated by the company (or at least by someone the company feels they can trust 100%)

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Lally Singh]

FWIW, Leopard's been nothing but 100% rock-solid for me.

And for switching out from Gutsy or Vista, consider Solaris.

www.sun.com/sxde.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[essh10151]

All solid points, but why does it have to be either or? You could have a mix: A normal PC that can do all of the things we expect a PC to do with an optional "Google layer" (or whatever) that gives you a thin-client experience to your mail, docs, etc.

I would imagine you'd eventually see a split between ultra-cheap machines that just do the layer and normal PCs that can do everything they currently do. About 80% of the people I know would be much better served with a computer that would just run a browser and store all their data over https at a secure facility. There are serious issues that you pointed out, but they are not impossible to sort out.

Of course I would not go for it nor would you nor would most of the people reading this site. But there is a large market that would.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[jcouvret]

I completely agreed with you until your last line. I fail to understand why Apple screwing up their latest OS release makes apple fans cocky. They may or may not be, but your line of reasoning in no ways supports that as a conclusion.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[G Fab]

It's important to note that some console games are trying to open up for people like you. Also, I think as consoles merge more with computers, that console games )which are already becoming content saved on an HDD, will become more modable at least in some cases.

Will things be as good as they were with DOOM .wads? Not a chance. Just as you like tinkering around, I wish I could adjust the timing on my Honda Accord the way I could with my Chevelle when I was a kid. Don't be surprised if the average home computers become more like an appliance you can't work on (as easily... like the PSP). There will be enshutiasts who keep throwing advanced motherboards nad processors and custom OSs in their computers... and they will be legitimately useful (like a 67 Chevelle is with a new Chevy motor and a GPS inside). It will just be an expensive hobby instead of a cool feature of computing.

Sounds kinda lame to you? I don't disagree. And it will probably be extremely expensive if I cannot fix my own computer or upgrade it. People whine about having to upgrade video cards. But what happens when you have to migrate to a new appliance that breaks or is obsolete? What happens with Microsoft or Sony really need their old system to be obsolete to increase profits?

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[dgatwood]

I have three machines running Leopard and I haven't experienced any panics. Chances are good that one of the following is true:

• The article's author is using hardware drivers (or other kernel extensions) that I am not. In that case, this should be obvious from the panic backtrace and may not be Apple's fault at all. It may also be a problem specific to one model or configuration of Mac.
• The article's author had an installation failure of some sort.
• The article's author has bad RAM. (Odds are good that the installation is corrupt as a result, so it's a good idea to reinstall if this is the case.)

In either case, if the article's author wants to get the panics fixed, the best thing he/she can do is to post the panic logs so that people can scrutinize it and tell him/her what is wrong. Instead, he posted a rant, which tells me he is more interested in making Apple look bad than in fixing his issues. *sigh*

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[cloakable]

Well, technically cpufreq isn't underclocking - the processor is designed to run at x set of frequencies., and can switch between them dynamically - for example, when on battery I select the cpufreq governor 'powersave' that keeps the CPU in the lowest available frequency, whereas on AC I use 'ondemand', so it uses the lowest frequency, but if the situation demands it (demanding app, etc), it'll automatically scale back up to maximum.

The reason I use it is to save power - using a lower frequency means my cpu uses less power, and also generates less heat, so the fans don't need to come on, saving even more power.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[G Fab]

I think you have a very reasonable opinion. But notice that the market is attempting to adjust a bit. The PS3 is starting to allow mouse/keyboard use soon. I assume the xbox will eventually follow. All systems are supporting higher resolutions. 1080p isn't super awesome for a computer monitor, but it's actually a pretty damn nice step up.

The mouse is going to invade console gaming, and people will soon start demanding a hybrid mouse/controller like that one for the PS3 (that doesn't work at all).

I wonder, in ten years, if Windows continues to decline and appliances continue to be more viable, if PC gaming will persist at its amazing quality level. Ten years is an eon in this industry, so nobody can really say. What I can say for sure is that soon, consoles will support the high resolutions of a computer monitor (and I doubt there are specialized monitors at that point, just small TVs), and they will support your keyboard and mouse.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[joggle]

I agree with you about X. I had issues with X on Tiger and was hoping for an improvement with Leopord. It's so bad now that I now do almost all of my work with a virtual machine running CentOS. Especially when using X with Spaces. I sometimes had problems where I would click on a console in one screen and immediately be taken to another X window on another screen. The only solution was to close the X window on the other screen. And the Z-order seems to be completely hosed (clicking on the top most window would bring up another, lower window). I can't believe they released such a buggy version of X with their new OS.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[adamruck]

I'm also having problems with Leopard. I'm trying to setup a Leopard server as a PDC at work, and the damn thing just doesn't work. The logs are not helpful, are there are no good docs specific to leopard for this software feature. I'll be calling up apple support next week, and if they can't help me get it going, ill be suggesting to my boss that we roll back from leopard.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Swift2001]

Well, it doesn't represent a big problem. I love the straw man you guys all work up; that Macs are supposed to be perfect. Nothing is perfect. There are a large number of non-Apple things that work fine on my old G5, and on my Intel Mac mini. The new system actually installed very easily, using the "update" procedure (I already had a clone, ready to work in case I needed an erase and install, and a reimport of all my apps and settings from the clone. I had some small problems until 10.5.1 came out. I needed things like Toast 8.03, and a couple of other updates of existing software. Boot Camp works better than before, so my Windows XP works fine. All these stories of massive problems are cooked up, as far as I can tell, by those who want Apple to wear the same shit crown as Microsoft. Not even close.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[QuailRider]

"I recently spoiled myself with a OC'd 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of RAM, two 150GB Raptors in RAID 0..."

Off-topic comment: ditch the RAID-0 config. You'll see better performance and double your capacity if you use separate partitions, and put your swap file on the second drive. Raptors in RAID-0 offers no real-world performance advantage over single drives. Not intuitive, but that's the reality of the situation. See here for details: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2101

Scroll down for the relevant bit: "Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth."

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Listen Up]

With my thinkpad, there are parts from several vendors interoperating and dealing with windows and ubuntu and even my playstation when I stream movies on TVersity.

This is a complete bunch of shit, but a line towed by almost everyone who has never used a Mac. Here's reality...my MacBook Pro has essentially the same hardware as your IBM Thinkpad (we use both of them here at work). I am using a non-Apple Bluetooth mouse, a Blackberry which syncs perfectly and tethers over Bluetooth without a single problem, two external hard drives (one USB2 and one FW400) each from different manufacturers, and non-Apple bluetooth headphones (which are very nice). At home I use the same MBP with my Tivo and Slingbox, a networked HP All-in-One printer, my 720p LCD projector and other various hardware devices.

As far as software is concerned, I am a full-time J2EE developer and I use a lot of non-Apple software on a daily basis. Working in a business with a majority of the employees using Windows, I also run a lot of Microsoft software and interact with any number of Microsoft servers/services for various reasons. So, I am not even using Apple software outside of the OS for more than maybe one or two applications.

My reliability has been rock-solid. So much so that at least three of the developers on my last project team have switched full-time to OS X...including all of their non-Apple peripherals...without any problems.

So, the argument that OS X is only stable because it's "all Apple" is a complete bunch of bullshit.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[pebs]

Gutsy owners are installing Feisty, and now, apparently

Honestly, I never upgraded to Feisty. I bought a Mac Pro at that time and was too busy with that to upgrade my Linux machines. But 6.10/Edgy broke a lot of stuff for me. At the time, instead of switching back to 6.04, I just stuck with it, despite being disappointed. In retrospect I should have stuck with 6.04 a while longer.

Now 7.10/Gutsy on the other hand has been amazing for me. Everything works great and I've been completely happy with it. It even works perfectly on my laptop for which no other Ubuntu version (including Feisty) worked. Wireless and power management are working flawlessly. I'm hearing from most other people who are using it that they are having a good experience.

As for OS X, it's never been perfect for me, I've had plenty of problems. I'm currently on 10.4, and even that has issues. So 10.5 having issues doesn't surprise me one bit.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[selfdiscipline]

Hehe, that's especially funny because to anyone besides a linux nerd, it just sounds like you're calling a black man a monkey... not equating him with a cool OS.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[ericspinder]

Install Hillary? I don't think so. May as well roll back to Bush.

I prefer to think of 2008 as a roll-back to Clinton.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[pebs]

People keep on talking about thin clients... but I just don't see it happening anytime soon for a host of reasons.

I'm going to agree with you, but only for the power reason and not the privacy/security reason. Most people don't even think about privacy/security until they get a virus or get hacked.

I'm moving more and more things I do using online and hosted services. I use different computers throughout my day and its just more convenient. I can actually perform my job (software development) over Remote Desktop which can be considered a "thin client." I actually do this quite often, and its more than fast enough. I think for a lot of people, a "thin client" could be all they need.

But thin client cannot catch up with the newer emerging technologies and some constantly evolving older technologies. Doing video editing over a thin client wouldn't work to well. With the popularity of YouTube, digital video cameras, etc, people want to be able to do this. Thin clients will probably never catch up to the state-of-the-art of gaming.

Then you have mobile users who are not always connected who need to be able to work off line.

I think we'll see a shift to more things being performed and many people only needing a "thin" client to do their computing, but only if bandwidth and connectivity keep increasing and improving. But the demand for powerful personal computers won't go away either.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[cp.tar]

Generally problems with remembering wireless networks and the passwords that go with them are solved by going in and removing all of the "Preferred" networks from Sys Preferences > Network, then connecting to the networks again and clicking the "remember this network". I've seen problems like that since Jaguar, and that particular fix has always worked for me.

I've tried that, but to no avail - things keep returning from the dead.

I'll try a fresh install and see if it works. I only have to install bloody Windows on my desktop first.

I hate this crap.

Hm.

Come to think of it, I had a lot more patience for this kind of crap when I didn't have a girlfriend.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[pebs]

As it is now I jumped the gun on ordering and I upgraded a bunch of clients to 10.5, to my present dismay (including my wife). Basically I bought on the good feelings I had towards 10.4.8-> and this release hasn't lived up to that standard.

I got hosed by the craptacular iLife '08 (all the apps are terribly buggy) and that bad experience made me decide that I was going to wait before upgrading to 10.5. I really want Time Machine, but I think I'm going to wait even longer considering all the problems people are having.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[eldepeche]

What did you do, sudo rm -rf / ?

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[HuguesT]

Hi, which version of Solaris do you recommend ? this is a real question, I'm a bit lost in the various distributions.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[jadrian]

Ubuntu got 30% and SUSE 21%.

And even that is probably exagerated. Go to Unis for instance, you'll see SUSE, Fedora... not Ubuntu. And those are plenty of desktops. Also users who are just starting with linux are much more likely to be all excited about it and spending time with this surveys, than long time users who have long passed that period. And the ratio of Ubuntu users is certainly higher amongst new users.

In any case, my point is, there were some very good OS releases in 2008, openSUSE 10.3 being one of them. Why not give those a try?

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[e4g4]

Clean install might be the way to go, or wiping every preference file even remotely related to network/wifi. At any rate, the last line of your post made me think of this. :P

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

and hope not to live to see the 64/128 transition

I've had my Commodore 128 for 20 years, I'm still waiting for software that isn't tied to 64 mode.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[iminplaya]

And you point is? Clinton paved the road that Bush travels on.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Mike Buddha]

All systems are supporting higher resolutions. 1080p isn't super awesome for a computer monitor, but it's actually a pretty damn nice step up. 1920x1080 isn't super awesome for a monitor? What are you used to? For gaming, that's way overkill, IMO. I have a 1920x1200 monitor on my laptop and hardly ever play games at higher resolution than 1280x800, because it just doesn't look that much better and I might as well spare the extra cycles.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Real gamers use CRTs, set the refresh to max, and have been gaming quite happily in Uber-HD+++ for years. I used to do that on my old GF3, at 1920x1440, without a second thought or a stutter. Gee-whoop your PS3 is so kewl man--1080i *yawn*.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[marcello_dl]

bush-clinton-bush...clinton? just like Italian governments- which should ring an alarm over there.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[ozmanjusri]

Agreed, and interesting to the point that it deserves its own topic thread.

I did that, and it gets weirder.

I put submitted the story to the Firehose, where it started at orange (I've had a few stories on the front page recently). It cycled back down through the spectrum in seconds, then bounced back to bright red.

Every couple of minutes, it'll cycle again - there's some serious voting happening in both directions there...

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[vuffi_raa]

Privacy: trusting the employees of a web application is no different from trusting the employees of a desktop application. ..........Power: irrelevant. PC's have been fast enough for desktop apps since the early 90's. Word 2 was as useful a word processor for average people as word 2007. A web application can be as fast as it needs to be. sorry- no, so far as my dayjob goes, I work in legal with VERY confidential data from VERY confidential clients- just to touch the data we have to go through layers of security and background checks, and work in a locked down environment where even other employees are banned from watching us work and all of our machines are locked on a closed network so that the only port into our network are the terminals that we personally see and manage. By closed I mean that it as all offline.
At home I split between 3d modeling, gaming, video composition and most importantly- making and performing live electronic music (do you seriously think that I am going to start having to have a xxmbps connection just for me to play out live instead of throwing my laptop and controllers in my backpack? that makes my setup more painful and I have strived for years to scale it down).
That means that pretty much every single thing that I do at home and work is completely incompatible with relying on web apps and web drives.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a couple of kernel panics using 10.5.0. Apple has reasonable diagnostic tools that let me know with some surety that it was the WiFi driver. Upgrading to 10.5.1 resolved the problem.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm hoping you meant Raid 1...

Raid 0 = drive concatenation = NO DATA PROTECTION
Raid 1 = Mirroring

Just an FYI...

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[TheRaven64]

Depends on what you're looking for. If you want a Real UNIX(TM) system and don't mind the the non-Free components then Sun's Solaris is nice. If you want something a bit more Ubuntu-like, then Nexenta is good (it claims to be an alpha, but I ran the previous alpha in a VM for a while and it seemed pretty polished). I'm not a huge fan of System V, but I keep an UltraSPARC running Solaris 10 around for testing my code (if it works on x86/BSD and UltraSPARC/Solaris it will work pretty much anywhere).

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[G Fab]

You're right. I wasn't thinking about it, but games generally do reduce resolution from what I might use for word processing. I use more than one monitor on my computer, so I'm used to a massive resolution. It's wider than 2600, but I can't tell you exactly what.

It's connected to my thinkpad. The only games I play on it are ancient. And on my PS3, I turn all games down to 720p (there are a couple that can do 1080p) just because I think it looks better.

So I guess there really is no video advantage to using a PC. A graphical advantage in some cases, but not a video advantage.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[G Fab]

re: privacy. It's not a matter of if you can lose data, it's a matter of how much.

Of course a dedicated bastard can steal data if he works for the company, is entering the data, etc. But the really bad privacy violations lately have been stolen laptops. You reduce the fuck-up potential when you keep data on on internal server. If a laptop is stolen, hopefully is lacks access until work hours (maybe until someone has punched in at work), and once the theft is discovered, the data access is certainly cut off. Better yet, you might have a way of tracing access and you definitely have a way of seeing exactly what was accessed.

So the think client is a huge privacy boon. It's not perfect, but it's better.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[JCSoRocks]

Interesting. I had chosen RAID 0 for the speed increases I'd seen in various benchmarks. It's crazy to see it have no affect on real world apps though.
Switching won't give me any extra disk space though. RAID 0 stripes the data across both drives, I've already got 150GB of space. I probably won't bother to switch anytime soon though. It'd be a real hassle. I do, however, appreciate the info. When I rebuild next time I won't bother with the RAID!

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[JCSoRocks]

ahhh sometimes I wish I could edit my posts... that should be 300GB - not 150GB. My bad.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[WinterSolstice]

Gotta second that - Vista was crappy on my new company supplied laptop (super slow, even when dumbed down) and

So I installed XP... very unstable.

So I installed Ubuntu... LOTS of issues.

So I installed Fedora... FEWER issues.

Now maybe it's the laptop that just sucks? Stupid HP. I want my damn Macbook back... it only crashed every couple weeks. Not every hour or two.

FWIW - I had the same problems the article is describing when I first upgraded to 10.3. Typically they are video issues IME. (in my case my vid card was overheating about every 2-3 hours)

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Trillan]

Yes, in that respect it's a bit like Primer.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[justin12345]

I had a bad stick of RAM in my old PB and got the "Grey Screen of Death" panic he describes practically every day. The OS would die anytime I did anything that was RAM intensive. I yanked it and it was good as new.

I had forgotten what GSoD looked like, until I installed Leopard (two machines in my case). Going through the logs, each panic seems to be related to either the power management or the Arabesque screen saver (of all things). I've had 3 panics. One on the old aforementioned PB (with RAM that isn't faulty and has preformed without error for years), and two on my Macbook. I stopped running that particular screensaver and have not had problems since, though it hasn't really been long enough to say if that was the culprit.

BTW, I agree with you that the author is more interested in drawing attention with an inflammatory rant then in actually discussing the problem, but that doesn't mean there are not issues with Leopard. I can't condemn Apple for a few bugs as he does, especially since they have a good track record for fixing them.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Fri13]

Yes, Canonical is free to continue use Gnome 2.20.0 version if they dont like Gnome 2.20.2 version and still have all other packages updated. Or keep any other package on version what it is currently and update any other.

Then there is problem if users want use something what needs Gnome 2.20.2 and Ubuntu comes only with 2.20.0. Users need to update Gnome or those parts what is needed to get what they need. Still they have Ubuntu ;)

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[KE1LR]

Clearly you've never used a Wii. Even my 67-yo mother-in-law has used ours and was playing tennis within minutes.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Wdomburg]

Wow, I rarely get an actual crash (or lock-up). The majority of the issues I come across (on Dell laptops, which work provides) are broken features - e.g. most things using the older intel driver so my 1400x1050 screen gets driven at 1280x1024 instead (until manually installing and configuring 915resolution or switching to the newer mode-setting driver by hand).

To be fair, I heard Fiesty Fawn was reasonable when done as a fresh install, but the main reason I ventured to Ubuntu land was the primarily the promise of easy version upgrades (and a competent desktop implementation, but I didn't find them to be significantly ahead in that department). With that failing, I had no real motivation to stick with it. Considering how many issues I've heard with Gutsy Gibbon, I don't regret my decision in the slightest.

For the record, I'm not a distro hopping newbie or anything. I've been running Linux on the desktop exclusively for about twelve years now and have been professionally supporting Linux and Unix for about almost a decade now (two years phone support, seven years as an administrator and the past year as an platform engineer).

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[dgatwood]

If it only happens during certain screen savers, that might be a sign of a GPU driver bug, perhaps. At least that would be my first guess.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[WinterSolstice]

Also for the record, just to be fair, I support Linux, Solaris, AIX, and VMS professionally (for over 10 years now). I have run nearly everything on the desktop at some point, though for Linux I like Debian and Fedora best. FreeBSD was my prior favorite.

The daily issues I get with this HP are mostly little oversights - ACPI broken, no wireless, video issues, stuff that works under x86 but not x86_64, etc. Annoyances.

The ones that piss me off are the ones that just should work, and don't. For example, compiling Kate PMP should be a no-brainer, but it blows up all over. Java installation requires a really cheesy workaround, Kontact can't pick up a contact if using "enterprise" headers (The pretty ones), etc.

Simple stuff. Things like wireless drivers I understand - simple stuff like that annoys me.

Yes - I can code. Yes, I will look into making patches for those if I get a few minutes. But I still like my Mac... because that stuff (for the most part) works properly. The little stuff. The stuff that *Should* work.

My other machines are happy on Fedora 8 - seems to just be this HP laptop with the wireless and display issues. Some sort of over-heat issue too, I think.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Wdomburg]

Heh... never had the, um, pleasure of being responsible for a VMS box. Last time I used one it was just a hopping point from the local university to the AIX machine my main account was on. Back in the dark days of support I would try to help with almost anything people called about, but was officially only dealt with Solaris, HP/UX, OpenServer and Unixware. Support a mix of Solaris and CentOS now that we've retired the last of our Slackware and Red Hat boxes.

On private machines I've done Slackware, Red Hat, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Debian, SuSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, CentOS. Personally settled on CentOS for servers, Fedora for desktops. I still have a pair of Ultrasparcs running Debian, but I'm migrating off them. Prefer the guaranteed support cycle of CentOS and generally find it easier to spin custom RPMs when I need to.

Definitely agree about the stuff that should Just Work. The perception of quality lies almost solely in the fit and finish rather than the underlying architecture. Most people don't care if their machine stays up for years if it doesn't do what they want. :)

On the other hand it's pretty drastic how much better things are now than a few years ago. Gives me hope for the future.

Re:Clearly you're mistaken

[Yvan256]

Just wanted to add my own "no problems with Leopard here either" comment (brand new Mac mini Core 2 Duo, but I did have to install Leopard over the pre-installed Tiger.

What will be interesting

[Gr8Apes]

is whether Apple will fix most of the issues with 10.5.1 and how long it will be until that's released as compared to Vista, and how long it will take MS to "fix" it.

Considering the levels of brokenness, this is merely a rant, as the summary correctly states.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

is whether Apple will fix most of the issues with 10.5.1 and how long it will be until that's released as compared to Vista, and how long it will take MS to "fix" it. http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/macosx1051update.html

Re:What will be interesting

[stuff-n-things]

10.5.1 is out and it only fixed some of the issues I've had. I've found using OnyX to delete all caches (including the system cache) has helped, as in it's been 2 days since and hasn't crashed. But Leopard wasn't crashing every day or two, so only time will tell.

One thing I have noticed, the Intel systems I use crash (and have other bugs), but the PowerPC systems I have (including one at the very low end of Leopard supported systems) are stable. That was also reflected in the size of the 10.5.1 updates--the Intel update was over 150MB and the PowerPC update was about 35MB (IIRC the numbers, of course).

Re:What will be interesting

[SuperMog2002]

10.5.1 came out two weeks ago. Anecdotally, I've been running Leopard since 2 days after it came out, and the only time it's crashed on me was when one of my RAM chips (which had been having some trouble for a while) went out in the middle of loading a web page.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't 95 Windows 4.0? Wasn't 98 Windows 4.1? Or was it Windows NT that was Windows 4.0? Any way about it, charging for incremental upgrades isn't just an Apple thing. It seems more rational to consider the 10.5.1 pack to be the Service Pack, and 10.6 to be the next version up, don't you think?

Or were you just trolling?

Re:What will be interesting

[RobertM1968]

Well, to edify you...

10.5.1 is already released.

And my opinion on the author's rant...

Many of the author's points dont make any sense in comparison to MS and Vista. SP1 isn't due out (as of now) till Q1 2008... OSX's update is already out... don't see the similarity.

He also claims that MS "mostly" admitted to XP pre-SP1 crashing a lot - but that was after SP2 was released and they announced Vista... in my opinion, years later doesn't count as "admitting" anything (especially as their "admission" was more of an advertising tool touting how Vista would fix all the issues that XP had - as they do with every release). That's like the weatherman admitting they were wrong about it going to be sunny last Sunday - when instead it poured... gee thanks, we've known that for quite a while, and it's too little too late. So, I dont see the similarity between that and Apple's stance - which is to (far more quickly) release an update - AND admit to many of the issues, up front and quickly (see http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306907 and http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798). So, where's the similarities? MS takes years to admit many major issues, months or over a year to release a questionable SP (SP1? c'mon... the SP needed an SP - namely SP1A)... and Apple admits to and attempts to fix the issues in a couple months...

Vista Similarity 2: Needless Graphics Glitz

Hmm... may be "needless" but people like them - when done right. Vista radically changed the interface in many areas, making things more confusing - while requiring most of a user's computing power to do so. OSX refined their user interface, and added to it in ways that didnt make doing simple things more confusing... and dont use nearly as much of the CPU/resources to do so... where is the similarities? And in the case of consistency between various parts of the OS or programs, neither is perfect, but OSX is light-years ahead.

Vista Similarity 3: Pointless User Interface "Fixes"

Then there's how Microsoft screwed up Vista's UI, reorganizing things that didn't need to be reorganized--like the networking screens... Under XP you can get to those with a single right-click on the desktop. Under Vista, it's three layers down for no good reason...

...Not to be left behind, Apple has messed up its own UI, too, but Apple did it with piles of senseless graphics enhancements.

So, MS totally messed up the Vista interface, made it more complex to interact with, and made it more confusing... Apple added graphics to make it prettier (which Vista is just as guilty of). How is there a similarity between trying to make an interface prettier by totally messing it up and making it more difficult and complex - or making an interface prettier?

Vista Similarity 4: Nuked Networking

Ummm... yeah... I see that similarity... with Vista users gotta wait till Q1-2008 (maybe) for a fix (maybe - doubtfully on some issues since it is due to components of the DRM).... compared to a sercurity/networking fix already being out for OSX Leopard.

Where is the similarity? That they both had networking issues? Neither were apparently secure out of the box - but Vista (for various reasons) dragged down network performance to boot - and made network operations more difficult... while Apple quickly dealt with (and admitted to) their networking issues.

Vista Similarity 5: Bundled Apps as New Features That Suck

Ummm... at least most of the apps that come with OSX are somewhat useful and will get used... unlike what comes on a Vista machine.

But in MS's defense, much of the crapware is installed by the computer OEM - not by MS.

Pointing out Leopard's deficiencies is one thing... yeah, it seems to have quite a few (though at least Apple admits to and

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm Vista doesn't crash. JAVA on vista sometimes crashes and takes internet explorer with it. but that's the extent of it. In fact, everything on the laptop, from media center extender to every facet and variation of hibernation and sleep, to quickplay, media player, and media center work perfectly together. Supposedly there's a reoccuring issue with the soundcard driver, but I've never had a single problem. The worst thing about it is software occasionally demands that one log in to an account with administrative authority to install. Which, to be frank, is a problem with the software, not the os.

Re:What will be interesting

[RodesNet]

This looks remarkably similar to another article posted a few weeks ago. The clash of these titans will never end.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems more rational to consider the 10.5.1 pack to be the Service Pack

Actually, it makes more sense to consider 10.5.1 the equilivent of a patch Tuesday in the Windows world.

Re:What will be interesting

[RobertM1968]

In my above post I said:

...MS takes years to admit many major issues, months or over a year to release a questionable SP (SP1? c'mon... the SP needed an SP - namely SP1A)... and Apple admits to and attempts to fix the issues in a couple months...

In this statement, I was referring to the author's comments on SP1 for XP - as noted in the beginning of my paragraph. Of course, it may end up also applying to SP1 for Vista - but I will make no comment on that till it is released, contrary to what the beta testers have claimed for or against such a scenario.

Re:What will be interesting

[Gr8Apes]

Vista crashes. Trust me on that one. It's the primary reason the last guy left out of all I know that tried it is now looking at finding XP drivers for his new HP laptop. Just because you don't have issues doesn't mean there aren't issues. As a counterpoint - my SP1 XP system runs wonderfully going into and out of S3 sleep daily for months while editing 150MB photos or working with 9GB or so worth of video. It's stable as a rock.

Lots of other people have issues with such a setup, but I'd be the last one to tell them they're wrong because mine works wonderfully. Mine only has 15 services running on it, which includes a MySQL instance. I don't have most of the crapware/bloatware many of them have running, and I certainly don't have most of the MS services, especially not that virus vector Windows Update.

From what little I've seen of Vista, trimming it down to such a level is impossible, because some of the problem services (DRM) have been intertwined with the kernel, thus making it impossible to remove. Hence your fubar'd network performance when playing audio files. Actually, that's a pretty interesting bug - what if I have a super long audio file, or one that loops, playing when I log in with a roaming profile? Do I go roam for a while? What if the audio file is on the network share?

Re:What will be interesting

[toleraen]

Or were you just trolling? I'll give you three guesses! Here I go again!

Isn't it more accurate to compare the time line of Windows XP to Mac OS X? Both were released around the same time, both are their respective publishers most popular desktop OS, both are currently supported, etc. Yet one has received free updates since release, where as the other has had four $129 software updates since release. Since both companies stopped supporting the older versions of their OS, which would you go with? The OS with free updates, or the OS that has cost you over $500 to stay updated?

Re:What will be interesting

[failedlogic]

I have a PPC system on Leopard and compared to Tiger its relatively the same with few if any crashes. If anything crashed on me it was Safari beta and Safari 2 but Safari 3 is much improved. I'd also say the Finder is much better in Leopard but it still sucks with copying and moving files. I use the command line for that (not that I mind). But this is the OS X experience for most users and should be able to rely on Finder.

Spotlight seems to take longer, but I also recall disabling it on the command line as it would hang for days at first install. Tried to re-index it and then turned it off. At least, I thought I did, but it is still turned on.

Re:What will be interesting

[Scruffy Dan]

"Many of the author's points dont make any sense in comparison to MS and Vista. SP1 isn't due out (as of now) till Q1 2008... OSX's update is already out... don't see the similarity."

To be fair MS has released plenty of updates to address certain issues in Vista. Not all bug fixes/compatibility updates need to come as a service pack.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

The 10.5.1 update is universal--there is only one--and it is 110 MB. I have not used Leopard prior to 10.5.1 (except as an immediate update), but the five Intel-based Macs I have used it on in the past two weeks have not shown any problems so far. For an operating system just over a month old, there is no comparison to the Vista operating system that celebrates its first birthday tomorrow. One is showing real promise, one is not. Hint: downgrading to the prior operating system is the well-known solution for the one not showing promise.

Re:What will be interesting

[ILuvRamen]

Oh don't give me that fix it later crap. It's a massive catastrofuck no matter how fast they patch it. Time for MY RANT! (which I can do cuz I'm a programmer.) I work at a hospital and guess what! The heart monitoring software never fails. It's perfect. No glitches, no bugs, no crashes EVER. Same with standalone solution in a box medical equipment and other complicated software that serves important purposes like keeping people alive. It all works perfectly because it has to work perfectly!
Remember back in the N64 days before patching? What the hell was a crash glitch? 99% of the games weren't capable of just locking up or writing garbage data over your whole memory card. They couldn't fix the games later so they released them so close to perfect that they were acceptable. And now today we have the original Xbox's Splinter Cell whose online play had so many glitches it was a crime against gaming. But the "just release it so we can get money now, we'll patch it later" crap is unacceptable! Programmers are getting lazy or worse yet, sabotaging programs so they're ensured work to do later fixing it. I say put in some damn effort and release software that's actually good!

Re:What will be interesting

[threephaseboy]

Safari 3 has been rock solid for me.
The most infuriating bug on Safari 2 (crash when using HTTPS over SOCKS) has been fixed. I havn't even opened FireFox since I upgraded.

Re:What will be interesting

[Gr8Apes]

10.5.1 is already released.

That's what happens when you skip checking update for a week or two...

Vista Similarity 2: Needless Graphics Glitz

Hmm... may be "needless" but people like them - when done right. Vista radically changed the interface in many areas, making things more confusing - while requiring most of a user's computing power to do so. OSX refined their user interface, and added to it in ways that didnt make doing simple things more confusing... and dont use nearly as much of the CPU/resources to do so...

Apple did make dock changes that I find... pointless, but then, I don't use the dock except as a signaling mechanism. If I only could hide the dock permanently so it didn't popup except via a mouse gesture combined with a key press, I'd be happy with it. Quicksilver is something Apple should just purchase and use instead of the dock or spotlight for launching apps. (Yeah, using spotlight to launch apps isn't the best solution in my book either)

Vista Similarity 3: Pointless User Interface "Fixes"

Then there's how Microsoft screwed up Vista's UI, reorganizing things that didn't need to be reorganized--like the networking screens... Under XP you can get to those with a single right-click on the desktop. Under Vista, it's three layers down for no good reason...

So, MS totally messed up the Vista interface, made it more complex to interact with, and made it more confusing... Apple added graphics to make it prettier (which Vista is just as guilty of).

First off, how do you get to networking screens with a single click under XP? (Hint: I just looked at my XP desktop - there's 1 icon on it - the recycling bin. Oh, he left all the crap icons on his desktop? Oops)

Second - with Quicksilver, the network panel is a simple 2 or 3 key strokes away, or a few more that intuitively and naturally follow as you continue typing "network" along with a helpful auto-updating suggest panel right next to your input field. Darn those Apple systems, it's so damn hard when they change things...

Vista Similarity 4: Nuked Networking

This one is just unacceptable (Vista). There's no justification that can possibly be made for this bug. Apple would have to do something along the lines of disconnecting your network every time you hit DNS to be worse than Vista's network stack. Security is a different issue. And honestly, when is MS going to fix their network stack? It's been broken since, well, I think their first shipped stack was somewhere around 88 or 89, and they still haven't ever had a working one. (Check out multi-cast, the answer to IPTV and other streaming media, if only the majority of the systems that could benefit from it weren't totally screwed.

Vista Similarity 5: Bundled Apps as New Features That Suck

Ummm... at least most of the apps that come with OSX are somewhat useful and will get used... unlike what comes on a Vista machine.

But in MS's defense, much of the crapware is installed by the computer OEM - not by MS.

Most OSX installed apps are pretty nice. What do you get with Windows? Well, calculator works half the time, and minesweeper, it's a hit. There's reputedly some solitaire games, and 3D pinball that had a DLL that would do an end run around MS sabotaging way back in the day (why you needed a pinball game DLL to run Word on OS/2 should boggle the mind, sadly, it doesn't). And then there's Paint, probably the most user unfriendly application penned by a college drop out, but widely used none-the-less because everything else for MS either costs a mint or has a learning curve that's just inappropriate for changing the color in 3 pixels twice a year.

Re:What will be interesting

[alex4u2nv]

Of course it is a rant, and rightfully so.

I'm not a fan nor a hater of any particular tech stack, as I see them all as tools to get the job done. That being said, I use a mixture of systems throughout the day:
Gutsy, Feisty, Slackware, XP, Leopard and Tiger.
I haven't touched Vista because I already know what it's like to be the first user of those systems.
However from all the marketing hype: PC vs Mac.
All the reading of slashdot and from the IT people who use Mac, I came to understand that: anything from apple "Just Works."
After all they only have one button and it does everything!!

Ok, here comes leopard to destroy my sanity.

A simple PHP, Apache2, MSSQL stack was all I asked for and what did I get from our upgrade to Leopard from Tiger?
I get to build a (4way) freetds for the system, with mssql support. Then realize it doesn't play nice with the current php build.
So I get to rebuild php (again universal build). That too didn't play well with the apache system, and to keep MySQL support, the headers weren't provided. So I had to trackdown dependencies to the point where I felt as if I was working on a Slackware system, except worse, since most of the time, the dependency tracking in Slackware doesn't require the rebuilding of existing software/libraries. At that point I was begining to get scared that I will have to rebuild the compiler and the libc libraries, as I once did for an Oracle installation on a Debian (Woody) system. But that is a whole different story for another time.

Anyway everything finally works. So what was the point of upgrading I ask myself. Well I didn't get Leopard because I was an Apple fan and just had to have it. It was because it "Just Works," and I wouldn't have to worry about building my own deployment stack. Thats what I payed for, and seeing that I didn't get it, I feel royally shafted, and ripped off.

This is where those SCO researchers come in and wave their Windows VS Linux TCO reports.

Re:What will be interesting

[Tragek]

Longer to index, or longer to search. Because I have to say, despite a few bugs (yes, I have had bugs), i'm staying with leopard for the blinding speed of leopard's spotlight index.

Re:What will be interesting

[Gr8Apes]

To be fair to MS on that one, SP1A was the result of MS losing (thankfully) the legal battle against Sun and having to remove their corrupting JVM from the SP. While I'll bash MS any day of the week, we should only bash them for the things they've actually screwed up - that list is long enough that you won't finish by the time the next release of the OS comes out.

Re:What will be interesting

[Jesus_666]

One thing I have noticed, the Intel systems I use crash (and have other bugs), but the PowerPC systems I have (including one at the very low end of Leopard supported systems) are stable.

I noticed that even with Tiger (even thaugh Tiger didn't crash, there I had slowdowns, app-evel issues etc). OS X/PPC just runs better than OS X/Intel.

Re:What will be interesting

[Merusdraconis]

Well, I'm sure that your heart monitoring software is far more complex than an operating system that has to deal with thousands of possible computer configurations and marshall memory and files to boot. How hard can it be to write an operating system, right? I mean, those Lunix guys did it in a couple of days, and it works absolutely flawlessly!

Re:What will be interesting

[RobertM1968]

Well, actually, SP1A addressed more than just that. Some of the issues with SP1 that SP1A addressed were programs crashing unexpectedly or locking up - including any Office XP application, problems in switching user identities, failure to install, disappearing screen icons, loss of both broadband and dial-up connectivity, invalid product key errors during install, messing up DX9a (which then reports it is incompatible with XP), "Access is Denied" errors after SP1 installation, various instances of trying to install Windows components that then request you insert your 'Service Pack 1' CD...

And that's the very abbreviated list. But thanks for pointing out the other reasons for SP1A. I did forget to mention them, which I should have to be fair.

Re:What will be interesting

[WGR]

There already is a 10.5.1 and it is should be on any machine that does a regular software update check.

Re:What will be interesting

[Space cowboy]

PHP 5 and Apache 2 both come with Leopard, I'm not sure why MySQL wouldn't play nice, but in any case, install s/w on a mac from scratch is pretty simple: either use the standard ./configure && make && make install approach, or use the macports system...

1) download the macports installer from www.macports.com
2) install it by double-clicking on the friendly icon
3) open a terminal window
4) type 'sudo port install mysql5 apache2 php5'
5) make lots of coffee while gcc grinds away

Simon

Re:What will be interesting

[zigziggityzoo]

Service Packs != Operating System releases. Just because Apples Marketing monicker is to call them 10.x, doesn't make them mere service packs. Each update actually added functionality that wasn't there before, whereas the SPs added functionality that was supposed to be there in the first place.

Re:What will be interesting

[Gr8Apes]

Odds are that all of those would have resulted in a SP2 instead of an SP1A. IIRC, SP1A was done because they had to remove the JVM. I wasn't aware they threw that much extra into it, probably because I wasn't running OXP, trying to switch users, installing MS dependent software or DX9a, etc etc etc.

Re:What will be interesting

[RobertM1968]

AND... (for me) to be more fair... Apple's 10.5.1 update hasn't been out long enough to judge what problems it may create. So who knows? But even going on the expectation that 10.5.1 is as good/buggy as XP SP1/Vista SP1... the release timeframe is the real issue.

And even in that, (to be once again fair to MS on this issue... which I think many people overlook), I'm not saying there aren't reasons MS needs longer - they do have a lot more hardware and software to support... what I was trying to say was for the author to actually claim that the wait for fixes (as he did) was similar was absurd. I truly EXPECT MS to need more time (is a year unreasonable? Dunno... that's a discussion for another topic I think)... but the author doesnt seem to realize, that even if that is true, 1 month isnt equal to one year. :-)

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I went from 10.4 to 10.4.10 at no cost. It was free just like XP service packs. OSX 10.3 to 10.4, for example, is a new release like Win2k to XP. Your example doesn't make sense.

Re:What will be interesting

[sortius_nod]

Actually, it's the other way around, "Service Pack" is just another bullshit name for "Pack of Patches". Apple don't do "hotfixes" as Microsoft do, they do minor releases (ie 10.4.x to 10.4.y).

Personally, I'm more comfortable with a little longer release cycle for minor releases than a REALLY long release cycle for service packs. Hotfixes do nothing short of fuck machines - anything from making apps fall over, to out and out security flaws.

I think paying for a full point release, and paying a damn sight less than an MS release, isn't a bad strategy.

$150 ever couple of years for an OS that, even on it's worst day, works better than anything MS has to offer is much better than $500+ to upgrade your machine that will almost definately require another $3000 in hardware to run it at any decent speed.

Re:What will be interesting

[fast turtle]

Oh Really? Let me tell you that MS lied through their teeth about no 16bit app support under Vista as I've managed to crash it and the Kernel. Yep, surprised the hell out of me on Vista Business to get a crash dialog about 16bit app support being terminated and then a BSOD with a Vista has been shutdown to protect the Operating System message.

Now how in hell did I do that if there is no 16bit application support under Vista? Guess it was IE7 when I hit my ISP's help page, which uses flash for everything (damn idiots). So I'd have to say that Yes Vista does Crash and it's completely unexpected when it does.

What I find damn near criminal is I attempted a test install onto a Compaq Laptop with both a Turion ML32 and a full GB of memory and the damn installer couldn't even finish loading. Claimed it ran out of system memory. WFT?? On a laptop that qualified for Vista as it was purchased 3 weeks before Vista's release.

Sorry bout that but MS has gotten so bad that I am trying to figure out how to move the laptop over to Gentoo Linux like my desktop. Or I'll switch to FreeBSD or PC-BSD, if either of them will finish booting.

Re:What will be interesting

[cheater512]

Not everyone has MS release cycles you know.

Those upgrades are completely new versions. Not bug fixes.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I went from 5.10 to 6.06 to 6.10 to 7.04 to 7.10 with no cost too.. how's that fit into your worldview?

Umm.. nevermind..

Re:What will be interesting

[letxa2000]

I've had Vista for 6 months and the OS hasn't crashed even once. I'm no Microsoft fan, but the cold hard truth is that I haven't had any crashing problems with Vista.

Re:What will be interesting

[Gr8Apes]

I've now been waiting 18 years for multi-casting to work on MS's network stack.

Is that long enough to say MS can't fix a bug and to put it far far far outside the Apple response timeframe? (Esp if you consider that the network stacks in both OSes share parentage, well, ok, MS's network stack in NT is a direct ripoff of the parent BSD stack with bugs introduced, but that's another story.)

Re:What will be interesting

[empaler]

FWIW, AFAIR, it's only from the 64-bit flavour they removed the 16-bit support. A quick google search only comes up with pre-release forum posts with furrytooths asking each other about this...

Re:What will be interesting

[RobertM1968]

Yeah, I'd say that is long enough... :-(

Re:What will be interesting

[ATMAvatar]

Programmers are getting lazy or worse yet, sabotaging programs so they're ensured work to do later fixing it. I say put in some damn effort and release software that's actually good!

More than likely, you should be blaming the marketing and sales droids that pushed out a product prematurely, realizing they could get the money now and slave-drive the programmers to fix the issues as fast as possible afterwards.

You could also try blaming it on the people who'll buy broken software and just bitch and moan, rather than take the software back and demand refunds due to defects. After all, if defective software didn't sell, the marketing and sales droids would be forced to release when the software is ready, and not before then.

Re:What will be interesting

[Basehart]

Safari 3 is rock solid for me too. I launched it immediately after upgrading to Leopard and

Re:What will be interesting

[pkulak]

Apple loves putting an "X" everywhere, so they stopped bumping the major version and just made every new version a "point" release instead. Sure, they don't scrap the whole kernel and start over every time like Microsoft, but marketing does not a point release make.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I do did that too. I have both

Re:What will be interesting

[aichpvee]

Damn, you guys actually pay for your OS? I know you guys don't have the high standards that I do (clearly, you're running windows and mac), but to pay for it!??! INSANE!

Re:What will be interesting

[Divebus]

Yet one has received free updates since release, where as the other has had four $129 software updates since release.

You were supposed to have Longhorn two years after XP came out but Microsoft's inability to ship when promised is a good thing now? The businesses who paid for "Software Assurance" on XP must feel pretty stupid. They did pay and got nothing - bought Vista a few times over if they stayed with SA but didn't get it until years later with most of the significant features stripped out - and a large percentage declined Vista AFAIK. Mac releases are slowing down like they said - this one was 30 months between major releases and 10.1 was free anyway. As well as OS X works, I'll happily pay for it even though I don't really need to - nothing phones home, no begging for reactivation, no repurchasing XP after the third time it blows up... I can install or uninstall or jump versions of OS X client and server all day long.

Besides, you call those things from Microsoft updates? All the customers were just beta testing until SP2. I wouldn't discount what happens to OS X point releases as "Service Packs". There was a HUGE difference between the original 10.4.0 release and the last 10.4.11 - not the least of which was Intel support - for free.

Re:What will be interesting

[civilizedINTENSITY]

You state, "we should only bash them for the things they've actually screwed up" and yet they screwed up by illegally leveraging their monopoly power against Sun in violation of contracts, no less, and getting caught. Or did you mean only bash them for technical mistakes and not managerial/legal mistakes? Shouldn't we just bash them for mistakes?

Re:What will be interesting

[DECS]

Wrong: Windows XP got two free updates Microsoft calls Service Packs. Over the past half decade, the company worked hard to deliver a major consumer update to Windows, but was unable to do so as planned in 2003. It then failed again in 2004, 2005, and 2006. It officially shipped Vista in January as Windows 6.0 for $200-500.

Apple delivered reference updates to Mac OS X in 2002, 2003, and 2005, along with a transition to Intel processors in 2006 and a port to ARM for the iPhone in 2007 and a new reference release as Leopard for Macs. That's four paid releases, which adds up to less the cost of Vista Ultimate and a de-malware checkup. In between, Apple has released over 35 free minor updates that fix issues and add significant new features (such as IP over Firewire, or file system journaling).

Ten Myths of Leopard: 2 It's Only a Service Pack!
Ten Myths of Leopard: 10 Leopard is a Vista Knockoff!

Vista is the most expensive consumer OS ever, but offers very little to PC users. Leopard, like every OS ever released, has issues. Tiger had issues, and new Macs running Tiger have issues. There will never be a perfect OS, and if there were, third party apps would have issues for it. But Leopard is a solid upgrade over Tiger, and fixes issues in Tiger.

The fact that Oliver Rist--a complete Microsoft shill who has minimal experience in small business selling Windows software, yet writes a column on "Windows in the Enterprise" for InfoWorld--has written a "Leopard has Vista-like problems that ever Vista doesn't have!!" should be of no surprise. The Windows Enthusiasts have all been trying to associate all of Microsoft's problems upon Apple lately.

Rist's last flamebait was an article titled "Does OS X Suck!!!?!?" where he tried to suggest the idea that Mac OS X is just FreeBSD with some custom icons painted by Apple, talked about "Apple jihaders," and tied in the hard drive failure of his MacBook as a problem with Mac OS X Tiger. Now suddenly he views Tiger as rock solid, and Leopard as something that suffers regular kernel panics? Rist even won a Zoon Award for his rant.

The August 2007 Zoon Awards for Technical Ignorance and Incompetence

Leopard, like Vista, is unlikely to suffer from kernel failure unless bad hardware in involved, or problematic kernel drivers have been installed. The problems with Vista are largely related to an inefficient, version 1.0 graphics compositing engine that assumes the presence of a high power GPU; a new driver model that fails to support a lot of common hardware; a flashy new interface that sacrifices usability to look interesting; and the lack of many practical new features.

Leopard doesn't have any of those problems (aside from some that don't like the look of the Dock, which is easy to change). Leopard has some minor issues with some apps and some new kinks to work out, problems that Vista also shares. Leopard has a mature graphics compositing engine that has been refined over the last 7 years and can scale down to work on less than stellar hardware; a largely unchanged driver model; and lots of new practical features, from visual backups to virtual desktops to UI refinements, file viewers, et cetera.

Ten Myths of Leopard: 1 Graphics Must Be Slow!
Ten Myths of Leopard: 8 No Hidden New Features!

It is unlikely that Rist has any real understanding of what Leopard even is.

Re:What will be interesting

[Richard W.M. Jones]

I noticed that even with Tiger (even thaugh Tiger didn't crash, there I had slowdowns, app-evel issues etc). OS X/PPC just runs better than OS X/Intel.

You've got something here. I'll swear my 2 year old iBook G4 (1.something GHz) running Tiger just feels smoother than my Macbook Pro (Intel dual core2). Going by the numbers this shouldn't be the case, but boot times, application launch times and general "smoothness" makes me prefer the iBook ... One thing that does make a big difference is RAM. 2GB RAM is the minimum I'd consider for any Mac, particularly if you use the "switch user" feature.

Rich.

Re:What will be interesting

[Wiseman1024]

Apple iOperating System. Kernel panic, with class.

Rebooting suddenly got more interesting and stylish with the new Apple release. iCrashes are the best complement for your iPod, as you can switch songs while you reboot your system, in a trendy and fashionable class. (Requires iTunes.)

Apple's Digital Crash Management (DCM) technology will allow users to enjoy their crashes anywhere, everywhere.

And like any of our products, we already planned its obsolescence. The next version of the iOperating System, due who knows when, will crash less, because crashing will again become a defect Windows alone suffers.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this means bugs aren't ever fixed?

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been posting that rouglydrafted shit all over slashdot. We get it. If we care, we'll read some website. Please, stop posting that stuff. I'm making an affirmative statement that your links have been seen. I beg you, no more.

Re:What will be interesting

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

$150 ever couple of years for an OS that, even on it's worst day, works better than anything MS has to offer is much better than $500+ to upgrade your machine that will almost definately require another $3000 in hardware to run it at any decent speed.

Ignoring the fact that most people would never pay $500 for an OS(take a look at the OEM vista costs, or the costs for home, or student discount, or any other number of popular ways to get it) or that I don't even know where you'd spend $3000 on hardware -- I tried to price out desktop hardware while debating buying a macbookpro and ended up with https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.asp?ID=522277 , $800 cheaper than the lowend macbook pro but has a quad core 2.4ghz(OCable to 3.6ghz on air), 4gigs of ram, top end video card, etc.

But thats not the point I wanted to make.

The point was that you don't compare paying $150 every couple of years to any outside competition, you look at it and say is this really worth $150 compared to the version I already have? Did they actually add $150 worth of new features?

You aren't renting the OS, you're buying software. You really shouldn't pay $150 for something you already have + a few small features, unless those features are worth $150.

Re:What will be interesting

[chasingporsches]

i received my Family Pack of Leopard the day it was released. I installed it on a cross-state drive that evening on my Macbook, and when i got back home, installed it on my iMac G5, my PowerMac G4, and (even though i don't live with her, i don't think apple will mind, since she is FAMILY) my mother's iMac G4. none of them exhibited any major problems.

all of the minor quirks i found were fixed in 10.5.1, and all the problems with Final Cut Pro 6 were fixed with 6.0.2. i haven't had it crash, pause, hang up, whatever. The only issue i found is with the VPN connection to my work, i believe it changed some settings there. but other than that, it's been a pleasure to use.

all of the installs were upgrades except my macbook, which i did an Archive and Install. the fact that it works SO WELL from one version of the OS on one DVD across all the machines... G4, G5, intel core duo... and that it works well even on the G4s, is pretty impressive.

Re:What will be interesting

[Zhe Mappel]

Isn't it more accurate to compare the time line of Windows XP to Mac OS X? Both were released around the same time, both are their respective publishers most popular desktop OS, both are currently supported, etc. Yet one has received free updates since release, where as the other has had four $129 software updates since release. Since both companies stopped supporting the older versions of their OS, which would you go with? The OS with free updates, or the OS that has cost you over $500 to stay updated?

A valid question and I am in a position to answer it, as I went with both. OS X for work and life, XP for -- what else? -- gaming.

Even though I used my XP box almost solely for gaming, it required the usual ongoing fussy MS-centric maintenance. Windows was reinstalled annually. Patches were researched and then applied as fast as Redmond (more infrequently in recent times) spat them out. I pruned my services list, suspected new entrants, and roamed around the registry. Especially vexing was antivirus and firewall protection, as I had determined some years ago that I would no longer pay the exploitative companies that have developed a symbiotic profit relationship with Microsoft's justly famous crappiness. This free software has required constant care and feeding, drains resources and can't be depended on to play nice with others. To be sure, commercial security software for XP has its griefs, too.

So in short, XP cost much less monetarily but required constant niggling attention that drained my free time -- and this only to keep the system stable and locked down for gaming.

Now, on to the Mac. No bed of clover, either, I assure you. Sure, I felt there was value in paying for the updates as they increasingly refined OS X, and only mildly resented the cost (in my case, two upgrades @ $129 each -- half your $500 figure). What I resented much more was the ongoing decline in dependability in system updates and patches. Some time in the middle of this decade, Apple lost its way. Before patching I came to rely on Macfixit.com, for two reasons: 1) it was brutally honest about problems with OS X; 2) other Mac sites weren't, functioning largely as fanboy group wanks or recyclers of Apple PR. Now, on balance, I would say OS X was much more stable and worry-free than XP over the same period. I generally loved using it. But it has become a quite different beast to the one exalted in the "just works" propaganda. It mostly "just works" if you are careful, stay informed, and don't blindly apply Apple updates or foolishly leap for OS upgrades. A certain trust, it has to be said, has ended. Maybe it can be restored.

Apple has needlessly complicated Leopard because its well-trod vector for coercing new upgraders is selling more "features." In McMansion America, they gotta have features! This has reached a somewhat absurd state, where the least change is now countable in a list of hundreds of these new "features" however trivial. And, judging from the widespread problems, it has been a bad cost-benefit trade. Fanboys, meet feature bloat.

I am happily running the very stable 10.4.9 and will stay right here. Heh: for the moment, it works. Just.

Re:What will be interesting

[MojoStan]

What toleraen said:

Isn't it more accurate to compare the time line of Windows XP to Mac OS X? Both were released around the same time, both are their respective publishers most popular desktop OS, both are currently supported, etc. Yet one has received free updates since release, where as the other has had four $129 software updates since release. Since both companies stopped supporting the older versions of their OS, which would you go with? The OS with free updates, or the OS that has cost you over $500 to stay updated? What you said:

Service Packs != Operating System releases. Just because Apples Marketing monicker is to call them 10.x, doesn't make them mere service packs. Each update actually added functionality that wasn't there before, whereas the SPs added functionality that was supposed to be there in the first place. I think you're both wrong or misleading.

It's freakin' obvious to anyone who uses both operating systems that Windows Service Packs are not equivalent to OS X versions. Windows Service Packs add far fewer "features" than new OS X versions. The features SPs do add would be considered minor compared to the major features added to new OS X versions (although Apple does list many "minor" features in their "300+ New Features" list).

On the other hand, Windows Vista added more major features to Windows XP than OS X Leapord did to Tiger. Of course, Microsoft had a lot more time between Windows versions.

toleraen did bring up a good point about OS updates, but mislead about how much OS X users had to pay to keep updated ("four $129 software updates"). Microsoft's lifecycle policy for Windows versions is: at least 5 years of mainstream support for "home" and "pro" versions, plus an additional 5 years of extended support for "pro" versions (an exception was made for Windows XP "home" versions).

AFAIK, Apple does not have an "official" lifecycle policy, but they provide very few updates for past versions after releasing the 2nd new version after that past version. It is misleading to say that OS X users are required to pay $129 for each new version to stay updated. Skipping one OS X version is perfectly okay if OS X users want to stay supported and updated. Since OS X was released in March 2001, users could have skipped 10.2 and 10.4 and stayed supported and updated.

However, that's nothing compared to the updates MS provides for XP. MS released Windows XP in October 2001 and will provide security updates, non-security hotfixes, design changes, and feature requests until April 2009. They will continue to provide security updates until April 2014.

Re:What will be interesting

[alex4u2nv]

Yep: I agree -- Macport, and Fink look like nice tools -- however, this is on a company xserve, that sits in a tightly controlled network. So access to the outside was limited.

At first I tried Entropy's version, but that didn't have the required modules that I needed: MSSQL (Microsoft SQL) support. Nor did the stock PHP5.

They weren't playing nice with each other, because from what I noticed, if the modules weren't built on the same universal bundle, the parent that has to load it, will complain about missing or invalid namespace within the dylib object (can't remember the exact error). To get around this I had to configure, for multiple architectures (universal build) with something like this:
env CFLAGS="-O -g -isysroot /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.5.sdk -arch i386 -arch ppc -arch 86_64 -arch ppc64" LDFLAGS="-arch i386 -arch ppc -arch 86_64 -arch ppc64" ./configure ...
Also, in order to rebuild MySQL module for php, the MySQL header files would be needed, but as I pointed out those weren't installed on the system.

And yep: to install from scratch is simple, except it costs a lot of time, which I was avoiding. And without access to an automated dependency tracking system, like I assume Macport is. I had to track down all the mcrypt, gd, libjpeg, freetds, mysql headers, (plus dependencies of those dependencies) in order to bring the system up what I needed.

Ideally I shouldn't have had to reinstall from scratch, or revert to rebuilding PHP at all.

phpize in the ext/[mod] with ./configure --with-[mod]=shared,/pathtodep && make && sudo make install
should've worked. And it does, with my custom built PHP5, but not the stock PHP.

Ah well it is finally over -- And I've learnt my lesson ;p
Sorry I had to join the rant, but I really did feel the guys pain =)

Re:What will be interesting

[baldass_newbie]

So I get to rebuild php (again universal build). That too didn't play well with the apache system, and to keep MySQL support, the headers weren't provided. So I had to trackdown dependencies to the point where I felt as if I was working on a Slackware system, except worse, since most of the time, the dependency tracking in Slackware doesn't require the rebuilding of existing software/libraries. At that point I was begining to get scared that I will have to rebuild the compiler and the libc libraries, as I once did for an Oracle installation on a Debian (Woody) system. But that is a whole different story for another time.

You obviously don't get the concept of using the right tool for the job, do you? Pray tell, were you using Xserve or are you trying to gin up a web server on a desktop OS?
People say Apple 'Just Works' because when you plug your camera in...it grabs the fucking pictures! Something that Microsoft has had an incredibly difficult time in doing. They don't say it 'Just Works' because it provides your flavor of AMP support by clicking a button.
Yes, it's easier to do what you're asking on a Debian or Slackware machine. *yahtzee forehead slap* No shit.

Re:What will be interesting

[bockelboy]

Did they actually add $150 worth of new features?

Yes, and that feature is called Time Machine. I guess there are some other minor features hanging around, but for me (I was using an rsync-based solution before), it's a night-and-day difference.
With rsync, my hard drive shuttered once every 2 hours as rsync went through my whole file system. On the other hand, the only way I can tell that Time Machine is running is because I hear a hard drive spinning up in the server by my desk.
The FSevents daemon on Mac (similar to earlier Linux ideas) writes out a list of all file system changes. Time Machine checks to see when the last backup was performed, looks at the list of file system changes, backups up those files, and creates hard links for the remaining files / directories.
It is a night and day difference between any other backup system I've seen. Further, whether you are restoring from a local disk or your company's server, the interface is simple and intuitive. No more "Hey Mr. IT Guy, can you please restore this file to last week's version?"
A working backup solution far beyond the usability of EMC Retrospect (cost, $150) is worth $150. An OS version bump is nice too.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

64-bit Vista Ultimate cost $118 on my HP laptop (back in march), and the UI redesign was a HUGE improvement. Far fewer clicks to get to any setting.

Re:What will be interesting

[alex4u2nv]

Oh yes, "yahtzee forehead slap," I forgot to mention it was indeed an Xserve. However, do enlighten me as to how Apple differentiates their Web Application Stack between their Desktop and Xserve builds? Are you saying that they build two completely different AMP stacks as opposed to making software portable amongst their different 'flavors?' So then though, what is their purpose for the 4 in 1 arch -- universal builds?

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, we download it over bittorrent, just like you do.

And you really shouldn't try to lump Mac OS in with windoze. It's really a very nice unix system.

Re:What will be interesting

[pdc]

Apple also do software updates for security fixes. So we can make the following correspondence:

Apple software update = Windows update

Apple point release (10.5.0 -> 10.5.1) = Windows service pack (XP -> XP SP1)

Apple major release (10.4.11 -> 10.5.0) = Windows major release (XP -> Vista)

So both companies do hot fixes that are downloaded and available gratis, do bundled fixes that are also available gratis, and major releases, which cost money.

Individual major releases from Microsoft cost more, but there have been fewer of them in recent years.

Apple has produced more point releases than Microsoft has service packs, but there are fewer new features in the individual point releases.

Apple uses a more consistent version-numbering scheme than Microsoft, which makes it easier to keep track of which version is which. :-)

Re:What will be interesting

[Altus]

I only have one machine running leopard but my experience has been much the same as yours. I haven't had any crashes, kernel panics or dropped network connections. I had an issue with a torrent client that stopped working due to incompatibility with leopard. I'm not sure if they have fixed it because I started using a different (and better) client.

I found this to be as smooth an upgrade as any I have ever run and I have had no issues with my new install. I'm sure leopard isn't perfect, nothing is, but its not some huge pile of crashes.

Re:What will be interesting

[Fatal Darkness]

take a look at the OEM vista costs, or the costs for home, or student discount All of which are crippled versions. With OS/X, everyone gets the same version with all of the features for far less the price of the most crippled home version of Vista ($129 vs $199 for vista home basic.) To get anywhere close to the features that come with OS/X you have buy premium, which is $239 retail.

I tried to price out desktop hardware while debating buying a macbookpro and ended up with https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.asp?ID=522277 , $800 cheaper than the lowend macbook pro but has a quad core 2.4ghz(OCable to 3.6ghz on air), 4gigs of ram, top end video card, etc. Desktop != Laptop. Laptop hardware is always more expensive, regardless of oem. Find me a laptop of similar quality and specs for a cheaper price and then we'll talk.

You aren't renting the OS, you're buying software. According to Microsoft you are renting their software. Have you read the EULA? At least when I buy OS/X, I can run it until the end of time if I want to. If I ever need to reinstall for whatever reason, I can do so freely. With Vista, I have to call Microsoft and get permission to run it any time I change out a hardware component. And what happens when Vista is EOL and Microsoft decides to no longer activate it anymore? You're just renting the software until that time.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of posting links to roughlydrafted, could you find a less biased source, like Apple's site?

Re:What will be interesting

[DomesticatedOnion]

> and ended up with https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.asp?ID=522277 ,

Can you pl. tell me your username and password at Newegg, trying to follow your link, I am prompted to.

Re:What will be interesting

[bravo_2_0]

With Vista, I have to call Microsoft and get permission to run it any time I change out a hardware component.
I'll ignore the fact that you can change hardware components without triggering the activation process but at least with M$ you can upgrade your hardware and I'm talking about all of it (CPU, MB etc). Hell if I want to I can buy all the parts and build it myself from scratch - now remind me again what Apple's view is on that :-)

Re:What will be interesting

[Gr8Apes]

Well, in the Mac Pro, the equivalent to a PC desktop system, you can upgrade up to 16GB of RAM if you want. You can also switch out the dual cores for quads, and replace the video, optical, and hard drives. About the only thing you must swap out with Apple specific hardware is the motherboard, as OSX (unhacked) is mated to EFI which isn't common yet. Granted, your selections in those components are somewhat limited with OSX out of the box, but if you're willing to play with Darwin drivers, you can get an entire slew of hardware working.

If you're willing to have a hacked OSX system, you can run on standard x86 motherboards, just don't expect support. So if you have an Apple motherboard and supported hardware, you can have a supported copy of OSX.

Re:What will be interesting

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Whoops, copied the internal link, no idea why newegg seperates them..

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=5222774
should work.

As for the person saying I'm comparing desktops to laptops, yes I know that, my point is that its absurdly hard to reasonably spend $5000 on a computer as the OP implied. Getting near top of the line parts like I priced out ended up at $1400, and I was just using the $2000 MBP as a price comparison point as thats what I was originally going to buy. I'd really like to see someone try to put together a $5000 computer without going for obvious extreme overkill (PhysX, SLI top of the line cards, quad cpu server boards, huge raids, etc). The list I put together far surpasses vista's requirements.

Re:What will be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you simply a shill (or perhaps the creator) of roughlydrafted.com? You're the same as Mr. Rist, but on the other side of the fence.

Re:What will be interesting

[aichpvee]

You're right, I do get my Slackware from bittorrent. But only because I want to help out with the distribution, otherwise I'd just go ftp.

And I don't think I was ever claiming that mac was as bad as windows (unless you're playing games, I actually don't think it is) but to call it a "nice unix system" is going way too far in my opinion. As far as having a user interface that I like, however, it falls right in there with windows and I'll happily lump them in together. I'd prefer to use neither and would really hate to be paying for the "privilege."

But let it be known, if I DID have to use one and was required to pay for it, yeah, I'd buy a mac. I'd have to be in the market for something like Shake (or at least how it was 2 years ago) though since you could basically get two macs and the copy of Shake (with free render nodes) for the price of the software alone on Linux. Which would have been a shame if I'd ever needed to buy it since Shake is sweet. That kind of crap out of apple is another reason not to want to support them. But I still can't believe people are arguing over who pays fewer hundreds of dollars to use these systems, ick.

Re:What will be interesting

[chris.evans]

u dont kno what u talkin about .

Re:What will be interesting

[Senjaz]

Yes. Tiger and now Leopard really don't offer your average Mac user their money's worth of new useful stuff. For developers however they have significant upgrades in both tools and APIs. So I think what will be the biggest driver for users to upgrade will be the new/updated apps they'll need to upgrade to the new OS to use.

Obvious

[rm999]

Apple and Microsoft display the same pattern - their products resembles beta for the first few months, and only become mature after a few years. Happened with the iPod, and all successful versions of Windows.

I never upgrade until the widespread opinion is the product is mature...

Re:Obvious

[mmarlett]

Pattern, maybe. But timetable, no.

Vista release: Jan. 30, 2007. Vista SP1 release date: ... uh, you can get the beta.

Leopard (10.5) release: Oct. 26, 2007. Leopard 10.5.1 release date: Nov. 15, 2007.

Sit around and bitch about new software having unfound bugs if you want, but don't compare Apples to ... well, whatever.

Re:Obvious

[explosivejared]

I never upgrade until the widespread opinion is the product is mature...

Apple users expect Apple products to be mature immediately, which is impossible. There tends to be a much shorter memory about Apple's tribulations then there are with Windows, so it just becomes commonplace to expect maturity with betas and all. Remember the story about how everyone freaked over the bootcamp beta going haywire, after Apple had dropped support for it.

Re:Obvious

[McFadden]

Vista release: Jan. 30, 2007. Vista SP1 release date: ... uh, you can get the beta.
Leopard (10.5) release: Oct. 26, 2007. Leopard 10.5.1 release date: Nov. 15, 2007.
but don't compare Apples to ... well, whatever.

Well at least you're own advice and not comparing apples to whatever...

Apple incremental 10.5.x updates aren't even in the same ballpark as Microsoft service packs. 10.5.1 is more easily compared to Windows update or patch Tuesday when Microsoft roll out a bunch of changes. And as someone who uses Vista and Leopard (dual boot Mac Pro) I can assure you the Vista updates have been coming just as thick and fast. I have no allegiance to Bill or Steve, and I'm a reasonably satisfied customer of both their products (Vista isn't nearly bad as most people who've never even used it would have you believe), but if you want to mindlessly bash Microsoft, at least make sure you're not basing your argument on a complete fallacy.

Re:Obvious

[ludomancer]

Wow man! You're just like me! I never thought I'd find another Win98SE user out there!

Re:Obvious

[mmarlett]

It's not a complete fallacy, though. Apple is on 10.4.10 -- the version I'm actually using, thanks -- which is the culmination of two and a half years of updates. There have been many, many little updates as well, but those system upgrades are not "update Tuesday" updates. That's a system update roughly every three months. I'd say that the uptime on my Macs usually top out around two months before Apple sends me some sort of update that forces a reboot.

But frankly, if I wasn't semi obsessed about updating my system all the time I think the uptime on my six-year-old G4 would be "the last time the power went out" and my Intel laptop would be "that time I was vacationing in the Bahamas and got stuck in an airport watching movies with no outlet to recharge." My office machine -- which runs XP S2, thanks -- has an uptime of usually a few days at best. It didn't crash today (though was turned off when I came in because of a power outage, ha ha) but crashed three times yesterday. It's largely my company's fault that they force me to use knowingly wobbly software, but that's not to say that I'm unaware of what's available for both platforms.

The point is that people say of Vista, "Wait until SP1 to upgrade." People say of Leopard, "Wait until 10.5.1 (or 10.5.2 or 10.5.3)." But even if you wait until .3, that'd be 9 months. Well, we don't see Vista SP 1 in 9 months. And there's no proof that we'll actually see it in a year.

Re:Obvious

[RobertM1968]

Apple users expect Apple products to be mature immediately, which is impossible. There tends to be a much shorter memory about Apple's tribulations then there are with Windows, so it just becomes commonplace to expect maturity with betas and all.

Keep in mind there may "be a much shorter memory about Apple's tribulations" because there is a much shorter time to get them resolved... as their recent bunch of fixes and updates in 10.5.1 (in about a month) prove in comparison to SP1 (in over a year) and Vista.

That seems a pretty consistent trend. Yes, users may expect Apple products to be mature immediately, but two things happen because of the situation I just outlined...

(1) If their aren't "mature immediately" then they will be quickly - which means it will be pretty quickly (months) that the machines in the pipeline ARE "mature" - compared to years for a MS based PC. That means a lot less people will experience issues... (to spell that out for you... if v10.5.0 has problems, that are fixed in a month... then only a month's worth of consumers experienced it... while if Vista has problems that are taking a year to be properly addressed (hopefully), then it is a year of consumers who are buying un-fixed/immature Vista/XP/etc based solutions - factor in market share and that makes a bigger difference... on an even market share, 1/12 of the Apple customers (compared to the Windows ones) would experience issues... the other 11/12 would be purchasing machines with updated code - based off MS's one year cycle, and Apple's one month cycle... then factor in market share... ).

(2) When people have problems with something, which are they more likely to remember longer?
- (a) "I had problems, but they were fixed in a month."
- (b) "I had problems, but it took a year to fix."
(pretending XP SP1 was a "fix" and assuming Vista SP1 will be)

Personally, I think none of it is a big mystery... it's (a) whether we are talking about computers, cars, or almost any other consumer product. People want their technology to work. Barring that, their next expectation is if it doesnt, it will be fixed quickly... when neither of those expectations are met, then people tend to have a much longer memory of the issues.

I saw it all the time with laptops... comes in broken... "We'll have you up and running in a few hours..." "OK!" (sometimes even followed with a letter of thanks to our managers for the good service we performed)... or "Sorry, it will take a month... it has to go to the manufacturer for a new motherboard, which they are out of stock on" (Toshiba Qosimo, anyone?) "Gee, that's ok!" (unlikely... usually it's complaints about the service and problems for MONTHS to come).

So perhaps that expectation you speak of is more of a combination of two factors/expectations that are co-joined that almost every consumer has: (1) It should work perfectly... BUT (2) if it doesn't, I expect it to be fixed quickly. Most consumers realize any complex device/software/whatever has the possibility of having issues from either day one... or shortly after... they hope it doesnt... and expect (knowing that it is still possible it does) that it will be fixed in an Apple-like time frame.

Re:Obvious

[countach]

I used Tiger for a year and probably had it crash maybe 4 times in that time. I've been using Leopard since it came out and no crashes.

I admit that some of the new stuff in leopard is a bit lame, but some of it simply rocks. The built-in VNC screen sharing for example, blows away 3rd party VNC in both speed and ease of use. Also Time Machine, while I'd prefer if it had more options, also rocks in terms of design and ease of use.

So I don't think the comparison fits at all. I've used Vista and I think the problems with it are deep seated. Leopard could do with a bit of maturing before it is perfect, but I don't see any great problem with it here and now.

Re:Obvious

[LoudMusic]

Apple and Microsoft display the same pattern - their products resembles beta for the first few months, and only become mature after a few years. Happened with the iPod, and all successful versions of Windows.

I never upgrade until the widespread opinion is the product is mature... Administrating 30+ Windows computers and 30+ Mac computers, I fully agree with you. I wait for the second service pack from Microsoft before moving to their "latest and greatest", and a 10.x.4 system update from Apple. That's my own set in stone requirements. I should probably find some reasonable place to wait for on Adobe upgrades as well.

In addition to that, I often try to skip entire generations of software. They don't tend to add enough features per generation anyway, so why pay for it? Just skip it and go on to the next one. We didn't do Adobe's CS1 at all, and we're waiting for CS4 (or whatever they call it) before we make another grandiose upgrade.

Re:Obvious

[imfreestylin]

isn't that what "mindlessly"" means?

Re:Obvious

[RobertM1968]

Dear Idiot Mod(ed me a Troll):

Ugh... let me summarize that for the idiot who modded it "Troll"...

There are less Apple users (that alone means the appearance of less complaints than Windows users)

Apple deals with issues quicker... meaning it is easier to forget those issues since you werent stuck with them for many months or a year.

Even if their market shares were 50/50... lets assume 12,000 machines sold in a year each... if Apple takes a month to release an update into the channel and MS takes a year for an equivalent update, then it affects 12,000 Windows users and 1,000 Apple users...

Since their market share is grossly different, that means (using the 24,000 total units in the above example) only 1/12 of 960 users will experience problems.

I think the post was quite fair and accurate... or maybe you didnt like the part that said (paraphrased) that since Apple has a small fraction of the marketshare, it means a small fraction of that small fraction (in a given year) will experience problems, making it seem that Apple users have shorter memory?

It's just math anc consumer expectations... there wasnt a single troll like comment in there... math is your friend... dont let it scare you into marking posts "Troll" (or learn to read).

Re:Obvious

[NormalVisual]

I don't have a short memory about Apple's issues. I remember the multitude of power supplies my wife's iBook G3 went through because Apple couldn't be bothered to put a damn strain relief on the cable, the logic board replacements (under warranty, thankfully), the fact that my dual-proc G4 tower is sitting idle because I refuse to pay $250 for a replacement 300-watt power supply, Apple's adamant refusal to admit to any PMU problems with my wife's new MacBook last year and the firmware update released shortly thereafter that fixed them, the issues that 10.4.x has with the automounter spontaneously dropping connections to NFS shares whenever it damn well feels like it, etc. I'm not even considering updating my wife's machine until Leopard's been out for a while longer and the majority of issues get shaken out. The *only* Apple products I've bought in the last 10 years that have been problem-free are my 1st-gen and 5th-gen iPods, and my wife's 2nd-gen Nano.

Microsoft's getting raked over the coals re: Vista and rightfully so, but Apple's *far* from the picture of perfection that a lot of people would have you believe.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to software in the post internet world.

Why spend the resources on testing when you can release a beta version and have the end users find the bugs for you? They will do a better job than any testing you could have done in house and is quick download for the patch.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

I upgraded to 98SE last year when my 98 install had mild boot corruption and I couldn't find the 98 disc. I figured it was about time to upgrade, anyway, so I went to 98SE.

Frankly, it still runs everything I've been running for years, and it runs well on my very old hand-built PC. (I spared no expense putting it together, and it's worked well for years.)

Re:Obvious

[Predius]

the fact that my dual-proc G4 tower is sitting idle because I refuse to pay $250 for a replacement 300-watt power supply I can at least offer you some help on this front.

http://www.outofspec.com/frankenmac/wire.shtml

I've got to update it a bit, if you're not using an ADC display or bus powered firewire devices, you can just use the PC power supply's +5v SB line for the white +28v feed. I've not confirmed that on later systems that have two +28v feeds, so some feedback there would be handy.

Re:Obvious

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Apple and Microsoft display the same pattern - their products resembles beta for the first few months, and only become mature after a few years. Happened with the iPod, and all successful versions of Windows.

It happened with OSX too. The first version sucked (not even beta quality), but improved over time and finally got great with the 4th version (10.3 Panther), and Apple's been building on that ever since. But it's possible that QA has taken a hit with Leopard. Maybe Apple stretched itself too thin and/or rushed the release (Leopard was a year late as it is; I remember Jobs bragging that Leopard would be released before Vista).

Re:Obvious

[gnuman99]

I have yet see XP or Vista crash that is not caused by bad drivers.

XP update in a virtual machine (run Linux after all ;), passed 30 days uptime. No issues.

Vista, well, hasn't crashed on the box. Problems with virtual machine (kvm+qemu) as no networking support in qemu compatible with Vista, yet. But hasn't crashed in real installation (32-bit and 64-bit) either.

I suspect that any crashes in OS X may be driver related (video driver) though I'm using 10.4.10 version and that doesn't crash.

I've had linux crash in few releases in Debian though probably because of some driver and because I use it so much (nVidia drivers). Anyway, all of the major OSes (XP/Vista,OS X,Linux) are very stable and don't crash - bad drivers are almost always the problem and bad hardware accounts for vast majority of the rest.

Re:Obvious

[mmarlett]

OK, Ironic as hell, but I have to admit that I just locked up my G4. Playing -- hold your fucking jokes -- Fallout 2. I probably could have used my laptop to log in to the desktop G4 via ssh and shut down the crashed game and got things back to normal, but it's just a lot easier to curse and hit the power button.

Re:Obvious

[NormalVisual]

Unfortunately the machine in question (a Gigabit G4-450 DP) has an ADC display, so I'd have to give it 28V somehow. I do appreciate the link, though, so thank you for that. In my case it's really not worth the money for a genuine Apple supply, nor worth my time to hack in a 28V feed, so I may just end up posting the machine (and display) on eBay just for parts. It's a real shame too - the display is a 17" Studio Display, which puts up an absolutely gorgeous picture.

Re:Obvious

[Oldsmobile]

I have no idea what version of XP sp2 the TFA author was using, because I've probably never had a crash over the numerous years I've used it. XP is by far the most stable OS of them all.

However, anecdotally atleast, I keep hearing of Vista crashing all the time. So the author claiming Vista is more stable than XP sp2 is just a load of bull, which makes me doubt the rest of his story.

Re:Obvious

[Predius]

Find a powerbook power supply, most of those are 28v switched units which will work perfectly with your ADC display.

Re:Obvious

[Altus]

ha! I'm playing the old fallout games as well before fallout 3 comes out. They sure don't play nice with the more modern OS's. Fallout 1 appears to do something incorrect when it initializes quicktime on launch. If you start up and launch fallout it bombs out but if you launch quicktime player first and let it initialize quicktime then the game seems to run reasonably well.

I have found, when the game locks up once in a while that apple-option-escape will force quit the game if you hold it down for a few seconds (though it doesn't bring up the normal dialog). If it happens to you again give it a try. I haven't had Fallout 2 crash on me yet so I cant confirm that it works.

Wow...

[Draconix]

So, is this "Oliver Rist" a new pseudonym of John Dvorak's, or did PC Magazine manage to find someone else just as whiny?

Re:Wow...

[cacepi]

I think it's actually Cousin Oliver from the Brady Bunch. Nobody liked him, either...

Re:Wow...

[paisleyboxers]

Dvorak is Funny though! He's old and cranky.. and hilarious.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, that's funny, pointing fingers at something as being too whiny, from Slashdot of all places! What's next, someone on DailyKos complaining about another site being too angry and crazy?

Re:Wow...

[happyemoticon]

It's not the whininess that bugs me, it's the glaring lack of content. There's just not a lot there, and what is there isn't concrete enough to build an article on. It reads like an IM conversation.

Re:Wow...

[slntnsnty]

Looks like fish, smells like fish, tastes like...

Maybe it's a relative. Nepotism ftw.

One thing that helps

[Paktu]

Even assuming that Leopard is just as much of a lemon as Vista (which I find hard to believe), Apple will have a new version out in, what, six months? Vista on the other hand spent more than half a decade in development and its successor is planned for (maybe) 2009.

Re:One thing that helps

[Gr8Apes]

And it's successor is doomed to be merely reheated Vista leftovers and low-hanging fruit of Panther/Tiger, from the wishlist posted here last week.

Re:One thing that helps

[Achromatic1978]

Haha, you're kidding right? The wait between OS X releases has gotten longer and longer. Not since the .0 to .1 days has it been anything like six months. I'd guess far closer to 18+ months.

Re:One thing that helps

[Anonymous Coward]

you think leopard is a brand new OS written from scratch?........

I was STILL without working bluetooth audio support after a year with my macbook - devices would work the first time and the first time only - after a reboot they never worked again. To get working bluetooth audio i would HAVE TO PAY FOR AN UPGRADE TO THE OS before it would.

apple is just a mini microsoft that plays in a much smaller pool of hardware and applications that it has to be compatible with and can't even handle that.

if anything apple's mac ads have just blown up and left egg on their faces. They play off the worst case scenarios of windows yet suffer similar - if not worse - issues themselves.

Another Perspective

[Alexx K]

I am blind and use a screen reader, and I find Leopard's screen reader, Voiceover, will randomly freeze for a couple of seconds when browsing web pages. It is extremely annoying, but not as annoying as the extremely clunky keyboard interface. Hardly anything is automatically read, you have to use the shitty keyboard interface to find everything.

Like Microsoft, Apple claims their half-assed screen reader has improved. Like Microsoft, they've hardly done anything.

NOTE: I don't actually own a Mac, but I have an Apple fanboy friend who owns a Macbook with Leopard.

Re:Another Perspective

[jellomizer]

My experience I find that Most blind users prefer Linux, or other form of Unix which allows a good command line interface. I am not sure why Apple or Microsoft even really try I can only imagine a windowed interface to be extremely clumsy for a blind user. Even with speech interface.

Re:Another Perspective

[SteeldrivingJon]

Well, Apple did add the new voice that sounds more realistic.

Re:Another Perspective

[Alexx K]

Well, so did Microsoft. The thing is, to a blind person, it's not all about the sound of the voice.

These so-called naturall-sounding voices, well, they dont' sound natural to me. They are filled with digital artifacts, and the inflection is all wrong.

But the biggest disadvantage of these voices is that they break down at high speeds. The more robotic voices, although they don't at all have human intonations, have superior pronounciation, understandability, and I can understand them as high as 400 WPM. You can't do that with the human-sounding voices, if they will even let you go that high (Most have a low speed threshold).

Re:Another Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's me wishing you become blind in the near future.

Re:Another Perspective

[jellomizer]

Computers can be good but unfortunately the blind person needs reduced functionality. Using Lynx, and command line OS's usually give them the best interface. The problem with the government accessibility guidelines is that it sets developers back 10 years in what we can do, and still the webpage will operate very poorly to blind users. I had to write an intranet program for a government agency there is one blind person in the agency. The program is for reserving fleet cars, which blind people cannon drive so no use in having them reserve them... While the application works, it is kinda poky and they go can't you make it go faster. I go yes I can, but I will end up breaking the disability guidelines. It is not that I am unsympathetic to the disabled users. but the PC environment makes it so everyone has to suffer because there is a true minority will be at a disatvantage... The money we save from not using the guidelines we could hire secretaries for the disabled people to help them with the work.

Re:Another Perspective

[Alexx K]

You do have a point there. However, there are instances when I'd like using a GUI for tasks such as spreadsheets, word processing, and web browsing (Lynx doesn't cut it for me). Unfortunately, access to GUI's under Linux/Unix is still pretty new, and currently, one only has access to the Gnome desktop.

Re:Another Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

That can easily be arranged for a small fee.

Re:Another Perspective

[Alexx K]

The guidelines set you back ten years? I don't understand. Following guidelines, you can have accessible frames, tables, graphics, imagemaps, and JavaScript applets. Even Flash objects can be made accessible!

The only problem is, there are some screen reader manufacturers that care more about cash than customers.

Re:Another Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

A good friend of mine has a visually challenged wife.

She switched to Mac specifically because she liked the improved voices in Leopard.

Somehow I'm guessing that your friend's computer wasn't configured correctly, with all the accessibility features tweaked to the right settings.

Re:Another Perspective

[Alexx K]

You may be right. next time I'm over there, I'll check out those options.

There are quite a few blind people migrating to the Mac. A lot seem to really like it. I have used Voiceover extensively. My school has a computer lab filled with Macs. It is pretty difficult to get things done, although this may, of course, have been do to me being unfamiliar.

Reading the manual did help quite a bit, but the product is, in my opinion, not yet mature enough to be used at work, for example. I listened to a demo of Voiceover and the Dashboard, and it was obvious that Voiceover was tripping up. There is no accessible spreadsheets application, and the only useable word processor is TextEdit.

I commend Apple for their accessibility efforts. However, contrary to what you may hear, Voiceover is not yet quite ready for primetime. With Leopard, it did get a bit closer, though.

Re:Another Perspective

[Brian Gordon]

LOL almost everything you just said is back 10 years. Nobody uses frames or tables anymore. Imagemaps are a gimmick that are never useful.

Re:Another Perspective

[evanbd]

Yeah, it's fairly pointless to make voices that sound "natural" at 400-600 WPM. Heck, *people* don't sound natural at that speed, but they can certainly sound intelligible (though it's far from trivial).

Re:Another Perspective

[Alexx K]

Nobody uses tables anymore? I'm confused. Almost all websites I've encountered use tables.

I know the W3 doesn't like frames. I wouldn't doubt if they felt the same way about imagemaps. They are still common, though.

And don't try and tell me that graphics and Flash objects are obsolete.

My point was that if you use the propper guidelines, and give objects tags, the only setback should be screen reader developers and incomplete accessibility in some areas (The Firefox Flash plugin does not yet have accessibility support).

Re:Another Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put it another way, shall we:

I'm rather pleased Apple and Microsoft 'try' to provide the blind, the deaf, and other users needing specalised assistance to use a computer. I'm blind after an industrial accident, but I still practice as a process engineer, and from experience, the vast majority accessibility developers target Win32, a smaller segment target OSX, a handful target AIX and the rest... aren't even worth counting, though KDE's framework has shown some potential for future improvement.

A CLI is only part of the equation. It's nice for input and direction, but unsurprisingly, even a blind person is capable of thinking beyond text.

Re:Another Perspective

[ravenspear]

Modern sites use CSS for layout, not tables.

Re:Another Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that's terribleNWEUFN(#37893BH7DF378qdf&*#(db#&*(fbE3FBB783bh&&*(db&*##*rb#@rb&*DF79#bnf&*(b#f&*#&f#$f#.

Re:Another Perspective

[Yakman]

I've used a few Linux GUIs, there's obviously more than 2 blind users.

Re:Another Perspective

[Splab]

http://oio.dk/ is accessible according to danish standards. Just disable CSS and you got a nice computer readable site. (In FF click view, page style, no style). It's not that hard to do, but it costs a lot extra and does put some limitations on how you render the site.

Re:Another Perspective

[dasunt]

Quick off-topic question:

In the movie "Sneakers", a blind character uses a braille interface to "read" a computer screen.

Are these common? Useful?

I've always been curious about that...

Re:Another Perspective

[gnuman99]

There is a curses command line spreadsheet that even has Braille mode. It is called sc. You can look it up in Debian at,
    http://packages.debian.org/sc

Word processing? The best solution is either LaTeX or something like markdown
    http://www.attacklab.net/showdown-gui.html

Want web browsing with better support than Lynx and a TUI? Try elinks. Elinks does actual formatting for you.

What did I miss? Well, there is plenty of TUI games in Linux ranging from chess to nethack. Heck, you can be a darn good Linux/UNIX admin if you are completely blind and not even be much slower than sighted colleges. I'm not sure that would be the case on a Windows/Mac machine - at least not *now*.

Text user interface is probably best for people that can't see. If you can see a little, then I guess you can use magnifiers and similar. But if you want to get some real work done, then text interface is best as it is easiest for the the user/screen reader/Braille. On a TUI, stuff tends to happen in order (1D) which is easier to follow than trying to visualize a screen (2D).

Re:Another Perspective

[Shag]

I am blind and use a screen reader, and I find Leopard's screen reader, Voiceover, will randomly freeze for a couple of seconds when browsing web pages.

Have you tried picking a different synthesized voice option? A lot of people don't like the pauses that are part of the new default voice in 10.5, "James... T. Kirk"

Re:Another Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

...and if developers bothered to adhere to CSS rules, their sites would be accessible not only to differently-abled people, but also to differently-implemented browsers. That's the whole point of a style sheed -- isn't it? -- to say to the browser: "Here is how this page should be rendered. Please provide the best interpretation of this." Yet some folks think that "Show this text in a 12-pixel font" means something constant in a world of vastly variable pixel pitch.

Re:Another Perspective

[blind biker]

Hey Alexx, do you by any chance use JAWS? What is your opinion on tactile interfaces (like the one with 32 Braille characters in one row)?

Re:Another Perspective

[Martian_Kyo]

I might sound a little ignorant (and off topic) here, but how does screen reader handle all the internet lingo (with new catchphrases constantly popping up ) , and the general illiteracy on the internet.

Some of the forums, even technical ones, hardly contain 10 real words and properly structured sentences are a myth.

Re:Another Perspective

[grrrgrrr]

"or other form of Unix" that includes os-x!

Re:Another Perspective

[Per Wigren]

They are very common, at least among blind computer users.
One of my best friends is blind since birth and he uses braille displays and has been doing so for at least 17 years (we met on FidoNet). He insists on using Windows because its braille support is supposed to be superior.

Even most fullscreen textmode applications are quite hard to use compared to most GUI apps as they update text all over the screen all the time without giving the display any indication about what text is important and what is just status information or similar.

It's amazing to watch him use Windows. He is the fastest GUI user I know! The windows just flash back and forth, I have no chance to read what's on the screen, he is just too fast. He know every shortcut by muscle memory and know things like that to get from A to B he should press alt+tab-tab-tab+ctrl+x-pgdn-down-down-right-enter and type that almost faster than the screen has time to draw the widgets.

Re:Another Perspective

[ManxStef]

One of these "getting started with VoiceOver" manuals might help? (Leopard and Tiger versions, multiple audio and text formats.)
http://w3.wmcnet.org/dtbmaker/books/vogs/

For browsing sites, see some of the new shortcuts here:
http://alastairc.ac/2007/11/voiceover-html-navigation-updates/

I think VO in 10.5 is an improvement over 10.4, but I'd agree that it's a bit inconsistent when it comes to navigating websites. Saying that, I've not used it much, only checking it out out of curiosity rather than need, and the learning curve seems pretty steep so I may be doing it wrong.

Re:Another Perspective

[ManxStef]

To be fair, I think the new voice in Leopard, co-incidentally called "Alex", works remarkable well at high speed.

Anyone with Leopard can try it out pretty quickly:

Open System Preferences. Click on Universal Access. Under the "Seeing" tab, click on "Open VoiceOver Utility".

Go to the "Speech" item in the sidebar. Pick Alex as the voice, then adjust the "Rate" parameter to see how the voice works when sped up. He'll automatically say: "Nothing is as powerful as idea whose time has come." Try bumping the rate to its maximum (100).

Now change the voice to Victoria and compare. Personally, I think Alex sounds a lot better.

Re:Another Perspective

[centron]

You might try Opera if you haven't already. You can read a page by pressing 'v', though you have to download and install the voice component after the rest of the browser.

Re:Another Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Those aren't users. We call them "developers"

Re:Another Perspective

[mzs]

That's worth a laugh. In college my boss told me about a blind professor that came in to give a talk. He used emacs with text to voice at 400 WPM, 100 would seem a snails pace to him. He had never seen a person use a computer so quickly with everything done from the keyboard inside emacs.

Re:Another Perspective

[wiredlogic]

He insists on using Windows because its braille support is supposed to be superior

It isn't so much the braille support as much as the fact that Windows has always had full keyboard navigation since it was originally designed to be used without a mouse. Keyboard navigation on a mac has always been half-assed, incomplete, and inconsistent.

Re:Another Perspective

[nahdude812]

Right, and CSS makes it extremely easy to implement pages which use modern conventions, look good to sighted folks, and are accessible to disabled folks. CSS is exactly WHY there's no excuse for not having an accessible website any longer.

Re:Another Perspective

[ManxStef]

Just thought I'd mention, VoiceOver's Rate is not equal to WPM, it's a simple percentage scale. I think the maximum of 100 is actually over to 750WPM, which should be plenty fast enough ;) I'd love to see/hear someone competent using this sort of screen-reading software, I reckon it'd be damn impressive.

On a related note, to see a demo of what's possible with assistive technology check this video out, it's truly remarkable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BhHwk9qSvI

Re:Another Perspective

[Nicolay77]

I use tables. No, not for layout.

I use them for displaying tabular data. Are you suggesting nobody uses tabular data anymore?

Re:Another Perspective

[guice]

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but do please note that the fact you are indeed blind, you will hear and find far more differences with a computer generated voice than anybody of normal sight. This is simply because people of sight do not use their hear as much as you do.

Whether you shouldn't expect to hear a difference in connotations is highly questionable. Companies such as Microsoft, or even Apple, generally do not hire people without sight to bullet proof their software to acute hearing they have generated.

To put it simply; the acute sense you have are in such a minority, it isn't within Microsoft's or Apple's best interest to insure perfect articulation of text at this time.

Re:Another Perspective

[Kerzo]

I agree that Apple and Microsoft could do more in the adaptive technology realm. I am legally blind (20/200 right eye 20/1500 left eye) and use the screen magnifier that comes with OS X. While it's far superior to anything Microsoft has attempted (it has full screen magnification as opposed to the chintzy Magnifier utility in Windows), they could still do better. Unfortunately, screen magnifiers for Linux tend to fall short as well, although I did see some improvement in the last couple of Ubuntu releases.

Flamebait

[eggman9713]

This whole rant reeks of a troll. It is just one user's experience. And he seems to have the delusion that Apple is perfect. Nothing is perfect. And comparing it to Vista is just further trolling IMHO. It's like saying Ford sucks because they have the same problems as Chevy and Chevy sucks.

Re:Flamebait

[anti-human 1]

Yeah but, at least it's not Dodge...

Is Objective-C 2.0 to blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since starting to use it, I've had a lot of problems with it, too.

When it comes to applications, Firefox crashes for no apparent reason. I thought it might have been due to Flash, but it has crashed even on pages without any Flash. And it works fine for other Flash-based apps. This didn't happen on Tiger.

I've also had Finder just freeze at times. Again, this is something that never happened with Tiger, or even Mac OS 9 for that matter.

The few times I've used bash at the terminal, it has core dumped on me. Yes, the shell is dumping core. Something about free()'ing already-freed memory.

Maybe this has something to do with the new features of Objective-C 2.0? I heard from some friends that a lot of Apple's code was rewritten to use the new features. I don't know if this is true or not, but maybe it could explain why the stability we've come to expect from Tiger just isn't there with Leopard? I mean, so many new language features will take a long time to stabilize. So maybe they shouldn't have been used for such core functionality, if that is indeed the case?

Re:Is Objective-C 2.0 to blame?

[larry bagina]

The biggest change in objective C 2.0 is garbage collection.

Re:Is Objective-C 2.0 to blame?

[metamatic]

Firefox is not written in Objective-C. Neither is the shell.

So no, your crashes have nothing to do with Objectice-C 2.0.

Personally, I've had no significant issues with Leopard.

Re:Is Objective-C 2.0 to blame?

[ceoyoyo]

Really? What are you doing with your shell? I've never seen an OS X shell crash, on any version, and I use it a LOT. Right this minute I've got... five of them open (on Leopard).

I haven't had Leopard crash either. It got understandably cranky when one of my apps sucked up all the free memory to process some data, but as soon as that app released the memory and the OS swapped everything back it was fine.

Re:Is Objective-C 2.0 to blame?

[yabos]

Neither is the Finder.

Not a problem here

[skingers6894]

Upgraded from Tiger - in place upgrade.

Not a single crash.

Upgraded to 10.5.1 - still all good.

But I'm just one guy - and come to think of it - so is this guy.

Re:Not a problem here

[DurendalMac]

Same here. Leopard has run fine. The worst that happened was that I had to update a couple piece of software, which is to be expected.

That being said, I've seen some real doozies come through the computer shop where I work. Most can be fixed with an Archive & Install, but some are ugly ones that I still can't figure out, like one new iMac that utterly refuses to launch iWork no matter what I do.

Re:Not a problem here

[DurendalMac]

In addition, I'd like to add that while Leopard has been a pain in the ass on occasions, I'll take it over Vista any day of the week and then some.

Re:Not a problem here

[Crypto Gnome]

Hear Hear!
Ditto!

Mee Too!

• Apple MAC PRO 3.0GHz with 8GB RAM
• 2 x 300GB internal rives
• 4 x500GB drives in an External Case
• on a RocketRAID 2322 eSATA RAID card (needed Leopard-ready drives, after the release)

I use:

• Aperture
• Firefox
• iTunes
• Google Earth
• Adobe Photoshop
• a handful of minor non-Apple programs (Synergy, Skype, Adium, etc)
• SuperDuper (which is cool, and low-level enough that it might break stuff, but it doesn't support the new cat so I will not run it until there's an update released)

So admittedly I'm not stressing my machine with "low level" programs that do weird and wonderful things (eg no odd "system drivers", magic background scripting tools, etc).

But still, my machine has been totally rock solid even after I "just upgraded" to Leopard. Ditto applying 10.5.1 .... 100% absolutely no problems (once HighPoint delivered drivers for Leopard that worked, and even then the system was fine, just refused to mount the external drive. No instability, and no data was lost.

Re:Not a problem here

[malevolentjelly]

I haven't had a single problem with Vista. It's never crashed for anything- and upgraded smoothly and painlessly. I've had no application compatibility issues, even with games. Same with the Zune- stellar performance, reliability, and all around great experience.

I am also just one guy, though.

I hear ya, buddy. It's a weird world on slashdot for those of us for whom the seas of technology merely part and allow us safe passage. Maybe we just don't compute "as hard".

Re:Not a problem here

[cobalt27x]

I am also having no problems. I personally have four systems running Leopard and I have absolutely no complaints. (One 'Aluminum' C2D iMac, one 'White Plastic' C2D iMac, an original MacBook Pro with C1D, and a Mac Mini with G4). All of my systems have been happily and speedily going along. No crashes, no headaches.

I use a wide variety of applications on these systems ranging from off-the-shelf games to command line utilities installed through MacPorts. Therefore, and expectedly, there were a small handful of applications I had which did not work immediately after Leopard's release. However, they have all been updated in the meantime and are now working great. In my case, none of these apps were remarkably critical; all of my most important applications worked just fine throughout. As a side note, gaming on my Macs seems to have received a noticeable boost in performance since moving to 10.5, which is really great.

So, make that two. Or, well, five.

Re:Not a problem here

[Llywelyn]

I've had a few applications not work, but always it was simply that the applications were significantly out of date and just needed an upgraded. After upgrading they all worked fine.

Other than that... completely smooth upgrade.

Re:Not a problem here

[evanspw]

Yeah, same. I had two or three crashes a week with Tiger (20" c2d iMac late 2006) and not a single crash with Leopard. Twice with Tiger a whole chunk of system/library went missing (wtf!), requiring reinstall. With Leopard I am having to use the latest beta Parallels since their latest non-beta build has some weird bugs. They are on the case, apparently. It's possible my Tiger problems may have been hardware related - I also replaced my hard drive when I upgraded (now that was fun) since, thanks Apple, the system updated wanted to update the firmware on my Seagate disk, which was promptly hosed. I couldn't wait for Apple warranty repairs to fuck around, so wore the repair myself. Maybe the disk was dodgy to start with - I dunno. Anyway, new Samsung disk much quieter. Seagate won'r replace the disk since it's Apple OEM branded. The thought of talking to some pimple-head at Apple to get a replacement disk sends me into a deep, unhappy, slumber. Leopard is fine by me.

Re:Not a problem here

[curunir]

Ditto here. My new MBP hasn't had one crash yet.

My Mac Mini, which was running Tiger, never totally crashed, but applications were incredibly unstable. But after upgrading that to Leopard, I haven't had one application crash on me, let alone the OS crashing.

Though to be fair, my Boot Camp install of XP hasn't had any issues (running with either Boot Camp or Parallels), though I don't really use that for much more than Netflix WatchNow and the various poker sites that don't support Macs.

Re:Not a problem here

[Peter Cooper]

Likewise. I did upgrades on my machines too, and all has been well. Only one minor issue is my girlfriend's MacBook got the commonplace keyboard problem (no response for 10 seconds, randomly) but resetting PRAM seemed to fix that.

Running a whole suite of apps, lots of technical stuff (lots of compilation, various interpreters, libraries, etc) going on, and Leopard has been good. The interface feels a lot nicer than Tiger, which looks toy like in comparison (can't get used to brushed metal in Safari when I go back to using my old iMac occasionally!). No kernel panics at all and network access is far improved.. no longer does Finder freeze up randomly on network browsing.

I guess you win some, you lose some.

Re:Not a problem here

[mr_zorg]

Me too. It's been great so far.

Re:Not a problem here

[ashpool7]

Obviously people have forgotten the nightmare that was 10.4.0. Leopard is positively awesome in comparison. In terms of stability, right behind 10.3.

Re:Not a problem here

[Mongoose Disciple]

Same here with my Vista box -- I'm a little shocked that it's been more stable than the Win2k machine that it replaced or any of the XP machines I've used, but, there it is.

(Tangent: I'm not deep enough into the Microsoft Kool-Aid to have bought a Zune instead of an iPod, though, but being that my iPod is non-warranty boned enough to need repairs similar to the cost of just buying a new one, maybe I made the wrong choice there.)

Re:Not a problem here

[catchblue22]

Same here. I've had no problems of any significance. Time Machine is pretty cool. This commentator is completely over the top. I'm sure that there are some problems, but this is not unprecedented in Apple's history. And I seriously doubt that they are widespread.

When Vista first came out, I remember going into the computer store to look at a Vista computer. It was hilarious; there was an ATI error icon in the corner, which when clicked on complained of a critical driver error. This was on a brand new display machine. Several months later, I observed in another computer store that two Vista display laptops were completely frozen. Given that I've only ever examined a small number of Vista machines, the fact that I've seen three faulty ones would, from a statistical point of view indicate an extremely large proportion of crashing Vista systems.

Re:Not a problem here

[Phrogman]

Upgraded to Leopard here, no problems whatsoever. Even have my Bootcamp and WinXP SP2 partition working just fine. Everything is as smooth as silk, and my only regret is that I didn't switch to using Macs years ago...

My wife has had no problem with the upgrade to Leopard on her MacBook either.

Re:Not a problem here

[Penguin's Advocate]

I have installed Leopard on 6 machines. Three Macbook Pros (All identical C2D models), one Mac Mini (G4 1.4Ghz), and 2 iBooks (12" G4 1.4Ghz, and 14" G4 1.33Ghz). The only machine that had problems was the 12" iBook, and it was an install problem. None of the machines has had problems since. The three MBPs are used everyday for work by me, my wife, and our friend. The two iBooks are used every day by a college student. The mac mini is hooked up to my TV to play shows off of iTunes. All of the installs were done on Nov 1st. Not that this means anything at all, but I'm 6 for 6 with successful Leopard installs that work fine. For the record, my MBP has had exactly 3 kernel panics in the year that I have owned it and all were under Tiger. So since we're all going by personal experience here, I hereby declare Leopard perfect!

Re:Not a problem here

[kklein]

Yeah, I haven't really had any trouble, aside from X11 being changed which means Inkscape doesn't work anymore. But I'm assuming that one or the other will be fixed, and until then, I don't really use it that much.

The dock is ridiculous, to be sure, but it's just a quick little command line prompt away from one that looks a lot nicer (not as good as the old one, though). Also, the menubar translucency is preposterous, especially if you use a solid desktop color. But it's not a big deal.

As for the complaints about network problems... I have found Leopard better than Tiger at instantly finding everything on my work network. It's so much better at getting around on a Windows network than Windows, it's more than a little concerning. What is up with MS developers when Linux and the Mac handle SMB better than their products... And they invented SMB?

All told, Leopard has been fine. It's not mind-blowingly great or anything, but basically, it's the only way to get Boot Camp, and that is mission-critical for me.

Re:Not a problem here

[iphayd]

Same here.

Well, I did run into the Journaling bug that I never booted from the disk and fscked (per Apple's instructions), but once I took care of that, no problems.

I've also updated three other machines without issue.

Finally, QuickView _alone_ has saved enough time in my workflow that I can justify a couple of restarts now and then (even though they don't occur on my machine.)

Re:Not a problem here

[sethadam1]

I've upgraded several machines from Tiger, and not a single one has a single issue. So yeah... this is not quite reason to issue a distress signal.

Re:Not a problem here

[InadequateCamel]

Add me to the chorus. In fact, I've found Leopard to run smoother and faster than Tiger (Spotlight is actually somewhat quick now, for example)...so much so that it makes me wonder how a group of people can have such a negative experience. Is it a particular driver in a particular version of a particular Apple product, or perhaps a 3rd-party app?

Re:Not a problem here

[malevolentjelly]

I have dropped the zune so many times on hard surfaces, etc- and it's been rock solid. I was especially thrilled when the new Zune's came out and my current one just firmware-upgraded and adapted all the features. I don't know what my warranty looks like on the Zune- That should be a good sign.

Oh yes, and its battery life is very decent. It retains it charge very well in sleep mode, so you can ignore it for days and have full battery.

I'll put it this way- I bought it because I expected that Microsoft would put a lot of work in a product meant to compete with the iPod, and they certainly did. If the Zune had any hardware problems, they'd be all over slashdot.

Re:Not a problem here

[End Us3r]

Never had a problem with 10.4. Our design department has been using 10.3.x for 3 years without any problems. I have never heard of anyone describing any Mac OS X version as a "nightmare".

Re:Not a problem here

[Gilmoure]

Same here, although I did have to find an updated carbon version of an OS 9 game (SMAC/X) to get it to work under 10.5.

Re:Not a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with my install of Vista Ultimate 64 bit from 2 months ago. I've not had a single crash or lockup yet and only one app that is giving me any UAC annoyances (an ASUS WiFi service monitor).

Re:Not a problem here

[NateTech]

Quirks with Time Machine not happy to back up to a shared USB drive, but got it its own and it's fine now.

I don't agree with some of their UI changes -- ArsTechnica (a real nerd news site...) covers most of the complaints nicely.

Works fine here, otherwise. One MacBook upgraded in-place from last 10.4.x release, and an older iBook G4 that had some problems with an upgrade (lost its 802.11x drivers and I didn't mind rebuilding it, since reinstalling apps is as simple as dragging them from the Applications folder on a mounted disk image made from the machine prior to wiping)... both having no problems after the 10.5.1 updates.

The OP doesn't even tell what hardware he's running it on, or anything... what a whiner.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[Solra Bizna]

I have been using Leopard since 12 hours before it was officially released. I have had two kernel panics. Both panics were my fault. (As in I explicitly loaded a kernel extension that caused the crash. Both times.)

Three or four of my friends have been using Leopard since it came out and have had no crashes at all.

My whole family's been on Leopard since it came out and has also had no crashes at all.

Clearly, LEOPARD HATES YOU!

-:sigma.SB

Re:Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[Aetuneo]

I have a friend who uses Leopard. Once, shortly after he got it, it crashed, for no apparent reason. This is opposed to no crashes I have seen on Linux, no crashes on whatever version came before Leopard (which I've used, and seen used, a lot more frequently), and no crashes in the maybe three hours which I have been able to observe a Vista system. Anecdotal evidence may be useless, but my opinion is that no OS other than Linux is stable enough for me, and I will act on that opinion.
That's really what matters: the opinions of the users. It doesn't matter if an opinion is false, or not entirely accurate. What matters is that someone has that opinion.

Re:Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anecdotal evidence is worthless. Follow as I prove this with an anecdote."

Re:Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[nanowired]

Vista has never crashed on me, and it has been running since July. Congrats, I win the internet trump game.

Re:Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[midknight32]

I have been using Leopard since 12 hours before it was officially released. I have had two kernel panics. Both panics were my fault. (As in I explicitly loaded a kernel extension that caused the crash. Both times.)

Three or four of my friends have been using Leopard since it came out and have had no crashes at all.

My whole family's been on Leopard since it came out and has also had no crashes at all.

Clearly, LEOPARD HATES YOU!

My experience of issues was 1) blue screen among three computers, and some rogue ACL's on two of same that were all upgraded.

The blue screen was due to the APE extension I'd unwittingly had installed (thanks logitech)

Other than that, I love it.

Side note, there are some horrible factual inaccuracies in his article.

Re:Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. Leopard isn't as bad as this article makes it sound. I've been running it for 2 weeks and have had 6 kernel panics. Why? because Parallels isn't very computable with it.

That being said. Just like Leopard, Vista is an improvement; when you have new and mainstream hardware.

Re:Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[Aellus]

This is even more evidence that Leopard is just like Vista: A lot of people have problems with it, and a lot of people dont. For the most part, people seem to be able to get by and use it just fine without a single problem. However, there are enough problems with it that people all over the internets are bashing it with no remorse claiming that it is a total flop and that MS/Apple totally dropped the ball. Both OS's follow that pattern. Leopard and Vista both have some problems, yet a lot of people don't have any problems at all using them. As an early Vista adopter on 3 different machines without a single problem on any of them since then, I can understand how you might feel about this Leopard situation :)

Re:Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[iroll]

Well, fortunately they're different in one key aspect:

There's only one version of Leopard and it costs a third of Vista. /yeah yeah koolaid etc.

Re:Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

As is yours...
-AC

Re:Anecdotal evidence is worthless

[Solra Bizna]

The effect isn't really the same if I end my post with "DISCLAIMER: THE ABOVE POST MAY CONTAIN IRONY, WHICH IS KNOWN BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS."

Cool, I hit the lameness filter for the first time. But, lameness filter, the effect isn't the same if it's not in all caps!

-:sigma.SB

Is this idiot for real?

[atari2600]

I was amused and delighted by the article (given my dislike for fanbois and Mac fanbois in general) but i stopped at the following part in the article:

XP Pro pre-SP1 crashed all the time, and Microsoft owned up to it--mostly. XP Pro post-SP2 crashed once in a while, and we sighed and kept working while Microsoft looked embarrassed and yelled at someone to work faster on SP3

Now (at work) i have 4 Linux boxes, 1 Solaris workstation and a windows XP machine that i no longer use actively (keep it around for compatibility tests). However i've used XP since it came out in 2000. It didn't crash always pre-SP1, it didn't crash frequently post XP-SP1 and after XP SP2, i've had the box be up for 180 days before i had to power it down for a memory upgrade and then the box was up for 328 days before i moved offices. I am all for Vista bashing - i am all for Mac bashing and once in a while Linux as a desktop smacking but that section above there makes him lose all credibility.

All i can tell him is L2UseAComputer, tard. Mod me down but you know there's truth in this post.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[atari2600]

Well the post should read beta in 2000 but even as a beta, XP didn't crash ALWAYS. Longhorn beta builds on the other hand were a nightmare.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Brian Gordon]

No, this section makes him lose all credibility:

Plug into an Apple network--you're good to go. Plug into a Windows network--you're good to go. Plug into any IP-based mixed-client network--you're good to go.

I'll let anyone with a clue mod me insightful. All the grandpas who buy into this marketing garbage can go back to reading PC World.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

what's a crash? pre-sp1 xp crashed all the time. my friends were all gamers, i was their support.

i finally clued them into the fact that the blip+restart in fact, is the operating system crashing.

i rarely see xp crash in the last 4 years. but it did crash a lot in the beginning, and they were very clever in getting the memorable blue screen of death. a blip. blackness, and then the machine is booting up.

by the time the user figured out what happened, they were back in to their system, and poking around. the mysterious reboot quickly being forgotten.

i saw this at the corporate level as well for the foolish few that rolled out xp right after it came out (yes there were a few companies that i contracted for that were that stupid).

so while i don't have a scientific sampling size, it certainly beats your sample size of 1.

p.s. i have 2 real macs, a quadra 950, and an se/30, several athlon based hackintoshes, a decstation running linux, an ultra60 triple booting solaris 9/10 & linux, i have countless intel compatibles running everything from freebsd to slackeware, to ubuntu.

and those are just my home systems.

i've worked in a dozen or more IT shops over 15 years, in companies with as few as 600 nodes, to 15,000 nodes.

at work i have no less then 10 machines that i have in some state of experimentation.

anyway, i think your credentials and your opinion are a bit of dog's breakfast.

it's shite.

you should be modded into the ground.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Phat_Tony]

I see. Because you had a computer running the very same operating system that this guy was running, and your computer didn't crash, then you know that there's something wrong with him personally, or he's lying, if he said his computer did crash.

When I upgrade to Leopard, if it doesn't crash, then I'll know this guy is a loser, because us 1337 Slashdot users know that there couldn't be any differences in the hardware or software or use that could cause one computer to crash and another to be stable when they're both running the same operating system.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[KingOfBLASH]

All operating systems crash.

Let me repeat: ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS CRASH

It all depends on what you're doing.

Got a fresh install of Windows ME that you only use to play spider solitaire, and that isn't connected to the internet?

Crash free.

Got a not so fresh install of Linux / BSD / Solaris where root has done something really stupid?

Crash prone (and possibly unrecoverable if it's REALLY stupid).

Anything in between is going to be based on what you're doing.

Install the wrong drivers / kernel modules / other software that accesses hardware and you'll make any operating system crash prone.

And since you have many Linux boxen and an crash-free windows box, it's safe to assume you're a power user.

So, you don't count!

You probably know what you're doing, and don't do anything stupid.

The real test is how often does an inexperienced user's computer crash? And, if we gave the author of this article a PC with Windows on it, would it eventually crash more or less? And, since other people don't seem to have this problem, what is causing the crashes (he might be blaming Apple for the work of a bad board for example).

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Xyrus]

Similar experience here.

I have had exactly one blue screen using XP, and that was caused by a bad driver. Other than that, 100% uptime across the board. I've had programs crash but the OS remained up.

On my macbook pro with tiger, I've had 3 crashes, 2 spinning beachballs of death, and one ice screen (frozen plain blue screen) in the past year. Most seemed to have been cause by open source programs (X11 based apps seemed to be particularly flaky), though one instance was caused by a mac update and the other by powerpoint.

So what does this mean? Squat. There is no conclusion that can reasonable be drawn from this. I don't think macs are crash prone pieces of junk. Nor do I think XP is the pinnacle of stability. Unfortunately, there are no standard "stability" tests to speak of.

The number of lockups and crashes (or uptime %) are pretty much irrelevant unless you know the context. If you're a developer, there's a good chance that you'll end up crashing a system from time to time. If all you do is answer email and surf the web, you really shouldn't see any crashes. The same goes for someone running a website that only gets 4 hits a month.

It would be useful to come up with a standardized stability test for some unbiased numbers. But until there is such a thing all reviews should be taken with a good chunk of halite.

~X~

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

i've had the box be up for 180 days before i had to power it down for a memory upgrade and then the box was up for 328 days before i moved offices.

Glad to see you have Windows Update turned on...

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

However i've used XP since it came out in 2000. You've used XP since when???

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[RickRussellTX]

windows XP machine that i no longer use actively

That's why you're not seeing crashes in Windows XP. Try using it as your primary, and you'll find that when you've got half a dozen big apps up all the time, and you're constantly testing the limits (that 4MB JPEG file decompresses into 700MB of RAM!), XP Pro SP2 will have plenty of problems.

It's certainly possible that the apps are at fault. But it doesn't really matter from a user perception standpoint. I use Linux (Ubuntu) and Mac just as intensely, and crashes are much less frequent.

Ask anybody in the support business; prophylactic restarts are simply the norm in Windows XP. They're not the norm in MacOS 10.4 or the Unices. I have reasonable confidence that they won't be the norm in 10.5, once Apple gets a couple of system revisions in. I can wait on the 10.5 upgrade a few months to make sure it's stable.

RR

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

No updates? You might want to think about checking for viruses and spyware. And updating.

Yikes.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[dreddnott]

Yeah, you have to watch out for those wacky non-IP-based Windows and Apple networks!

Maybe he's from 15 years into the past and is thinking of IPX and Appletalk??

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... what you're saying is "my anecdote is superior to your anecdote"?

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were lucky. The only thing crashing more than XP pre-SP1 for me was the win98 boxes at my school at that time. I had friends who had no problems at all, but for some reason all kind of odd chrashes happened to me.
That is the only reason I know how to look for bluescreens in windows (yes, some of my friends got them too, but windows reboots too fast for them to realize what just happened).

But hey. That could have been my graphicsdriver (old ati card, used the windows bundled for it). Or my soundcard (well, windows bundled still worked better than creatives for that live card).

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Kolie]

Well said. Glad to know i'm not the only one with "luck".

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[eclectic4]

You don't get it, obviously. He's a writer for PC magazine, and his story is being posted on /. I'm not saying he's a loser, I'm just saying this entire story is beyond silly due to the fact that he actually is one guy. This is quite obviously a flame piece to get hits to the site. How does this stuff get on /.? Was it the catchy headline? /. is fishing for hits too I suppose?

Probably...

If one of my devices doesn't just "work" in Linux, or if Windows crashes or simply makes me avoid certain aspects of it due to it's complete unintuitiveness and decide to throw them both out the window, it would make me as silly as this guy.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[shroudedmoon]

When I upgrade to Leopard, if it doesn't crash, then I'll know this guy is a loser, because us 1337 Slashdot users know that there couldn't be any differences in the hardware or software or use that could cause one computer to crash and another to be stable when they're both running the same operating system.

Then blame the hardware and software differences, and not the OS. I've never seen an instance of XP being unstable without other mitigating factors.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Fulkkari]

Joining the discussion a bit late, but I wanted to say that this is exactly what many people don't get. I find it surprising that even here on Slashdot there are people who don't understand the consequences of bad software and/or user stupidity can have on a system. There was a similar article about Leopard-upgrade problems not long ago, which turned out to be due to the installation of a third party application (APE), which had been relying on a set of unsupported features. Yet some people gave the impression that Apple would somehow be liable.

Now, it could be argued that operating systems should be capable of protecting themselves better from low-level malfunctioning software than they are today. I don't see this happening any time soon. The trend of moving towards user-mode drivers might give some relief however, if designed properly. Either way, the simplest way today to avoid the problems is to be careful what is installed and how the system is used.

It is funny as you mentioned Windows ME as an example, as I actually used to run Windows ME at home and it turned out to be the most problem free version of Windows that I've ever used.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Phat_Tony]

That's true, it's not the operating system's fault.

The installation of NT on my old computer at work was very stable, as long as you didn't introduce any mitigating factors like moving the mouse, pushing keys on the keyboard, or running software. In actual use it crashed an average of once or twice a day, but had I not tried to use the computer, I suspect you're right that it never would have crashed, so it's clearly not the operating system's fault.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Enahs]

Yeah, and I'll put ME on good hardware up against an eMachine running FreeBSD any day. ;->

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[Brian Gordon]

Or maybe his idea of a network is an ad-hoc wireless network depending on windows Internet Connection Sharing.. I guess those are popular in PC World Labs.

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[KingOfBLASH]

The point is not that a fresh install of ME is better than a fresh install of BSD.

The point is the instability is caused in large part by the user.

Granted the OS should restrict how unstable a system should be. But if the author is comparing an OS he made crash with one supported by his local IT department (and crash free because they don't allow him to do something stupid), is it really a fair comparison?

Re:Is this idiot for real?

[NateTech]

Oh, there are some systems that don't crash -- or at least default to fail-safe (not fail soft) modes. They're not something that gets sold to consumers, though -- unless you're an awfully rich consumer. And if you are, you probably don't care.

Rather unfortunate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given Apples current advertising campaign.

Because PC Magazine is an authority?

[wuputah]

I have Leopard on several systems and know of several others running Leopard, and other than Apple-acknowledged installation issues on one system, it has been a trouble-free experience. I did not have any serious issues with 10.5.0, but I didn't have much time to run that before 10.5.1 came out.

My guess is that this PC Magazine guy is running some piece of software that's causing his system to go nuts. I have done this myself in the past. After a few crashes, I looked at the kernel log and it was a 3rd-partybeta mouse driver I had installed. I got rid of it and my system was golden.

Some of his other points are fine. I don't think the new features are particularly fantastic. I didn't think so with Tiger either. But I don't think this is an alarm-raising Vista-level catastrophe.

Re:Because PC Magazine is an authority?

[Thrudheim]

Same here. I've got three machines running Leopard smoothly. He, being a computer geek, probably installed all kinds of crap. Just needs to find the offender and get rid of it.

Re:Because PC Magazine is an authority?

[Frankie70]

My guess is that this PC Magazine guy is running some piece of software that's causing his system to go nuts. I have done this myself in the past. After a few crashes, I looked at the kernel log and it was a 3rd-partybeta mouse driver I had installed. I got rid of it and my system was golden.


Wonder why this similiar excuse isn't good enough for Windows BSOD which are mostly caused by 3rd party drivers.

Re:Because PC Magazine is an authority?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

oohh I was with you until you blamed it on a mouse driver. What the hell are you doing installing a beta mouse driver? What new functionality could it possibly be providing? For that mater, why did you need a mouse driver in the first place? Even back in Win 95 days I didn't need a 3rd pary mouse driver. I've been using linux since 97, and I have never needed to find a mouse driver.

In any case, I would not be suprised to find he installed a custom 3rd party alpha keyboard driver for his mac book, or something. As a mac user myself, I'm really suprised at how many vocal people are in letting people know they had a problem with their mac, that was caused by something silly they did, only to fix the problem by doing something even sillier and proclaiming Apple's greatness.

I'm not trolling, really I'm not. Its just bizarre. I've done enough tech support for friends and families to know that everyone does silly things, and often do sillier things to work around them, but they usually don't tell people about it, and they really don't proclaim Microsoft's greatness afterwards. In fact, they usually blame Microsoft.

Re:Because PC Magazine is an authority?

[wuputah]

I didn't remember at the time what it was called, but it was SideTrack by Raging Menace. It was a different time.... after all, I had a Powerbook.

Re:Because PC Magazine is an authority?

[wuputah]

So you're saying the one time I got kernel crashes due to an unsupported, beta (at the time) mouse driver, and I fixed by looking at a simple to understand kernel log, is analogous to every Windows BSOD caused by every 3rd-party Windows driver, which you absolutely have to install in order to have reasonable performance... right.

No, it's not

[dedazo]

Not when it's about how Vista crashes every five minutes. That's valuable anecdotal evidence.

Never crashed for me either, but what do I know.

as an apple user...

[datapharmer]

I concur. Leopard has SERIOUS problems. It is more than a "point upgrade"as the author states and has some nice new features and enhancements, but firewall breaks all sorts of things abd is as annoying as the Vista mother-may-I prompts giving warnings even after applications have been placed on the white list. DHCP doesn't acquire addresses properly and firewall must be disabled, airport turned off then back on for it to work again.

I've had 2 kernel panics in 2 days (I never experienced a kernel panic under tiger). I have also had the OS go unstable and Finder et al will crash randomly until restart. Final Cut Pro 6.0 crashes all the time doing things as simple moving the timeline. Spotlight crashes and reloads while doing searches sometimes.

Disk Utility can't repair disk permissions or recognizes them as incorrect when they are not (not sure which).

Java is completely screwed! No java 6 yet and javascript commands in safari do bizarre things sometimes like launching outside applications such as finder instead of doing what they are intended to do within the application!

Apple has some serious work to do if they want to keep Leopard installed on users' machines - and they had better do it fast!

Re:as an apple user...

[jellomizer]

Try this...
Power on hold Command-s
once at the prompt do the fsck -fy

reboot

That may fix the problem.

also if you upgraded or did a clean install. I found problems with upgrade where my system was ultra slow then it finally couldn't read my file-vault disk. Being that all my important information was there where no hope of return I did a Clean Install and it actually ran snappy. Although I had to dig threw backups to get my important files back.

Re:as an apple user...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not had any major problems. I've upgraded to Leopard on a Macbook Pro and Power Mac G5. Easiest upgrade I have ever done. Just my experience.

Re:as an apple user...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a solution to your problems. Install a more stable and universally compatible OS such as Microsoft Windows XP SP2 or Microsoft Windows Vista.

Re:as an apple user...

[CatOne]

Okay, so to address your points in order:

* Yes, Leopard *is* more than a point upgrade. It's a major upgrade. Don't get caught up on the numbering... there are BIG changes under the hood between 10.4 and 10.5. As there were between 10.4 and 10.3. A "point" upgrade is 10.4.3 to 10.4.4. I don't have any crashes with Spotlight but I haven't installed FC Studio 6 yet. Even if I did, I couldn't give it a fair shake as I'm not a video editor.

* The GUI for the Firewall is totally different than it was in Tiger. And it's really confusing. What's goofy is the Firewall GUI in Leopard is for the *application* firewall, which is completely new, and which does some stuff based on application signatures. It has no control whatsoever on the ports-based firewall, IPFW. IPFW still actually exists and be configured using ipfw rules if you're so inclined (it's straightforward, but non-trivial for those who aren't command-line fans and who don't want to learn about ports, port state, in/out, and UDP versus TCP). This change is very poorly documented. IMO you should leave the firewall GUI off for now.

* Disk Utilitiy can and does repair permissions. There are a couple applications and things it's not fixing right now, but this is a very small percentage (probably 0.5%) of things. And it's really not much to worry about. The silly thing is that Mac users have come to see "Repair Permissions" as a magic bullet and it's really not. It doesn't fix all that many things, but this is a case of religion (or voodoo).

* Java isn't screwed, but true you're limited to Java 5 (er, 1.5) for now. How many things do you do which are actually Java 6 only commands? Most apps I use still use 1.3 and *maybe* 1.4.

Sure, there are bugs. Sure, it's not perfect. But it's 10.5.1. These things take some time, as the betas are tested by tens of thousands, and the GMs are used by millions (soon enough, tens of millions). They'll get fixed, but if you aren't prepared for a couple inconveniences it's ill advised to upgrade to an OS in the first few days or even weeks of its release. It's called "the bleeding edge" for a reason.

Also perhaps you didn't install 10.4.0. It had similar issues.

Re:as an apple user...

[Have Blue]

If you're having all kinds of random errors in lots of program that don't seem to follow a particular pattern, some of your RAM may be defective or dying.

Re:as an apple user...

[datapharmer]

That would be my first thought except that I didn't have ANY problems under tiger. I have also run a stress test on the RAM and didn't find any problems. I also checked the disk drive. The processor was put under load to see if that was an issue... nothing turned up, and no problems until after the upgrade. Other people have also reported very similar experiences if you check the forums at apple.com

Re:as an apple user...

[Serious Callers Only]

I concur. Leopard has SERIOUS problems.

You missed out the for me at the end of that sentence. I (and quite a few other people on this thread) have done an upgrade with zero problems, running a wide range of apps, including Adobe ones. The only problem I had was with Lightroom which has now been fixed by an update to Lightroom. I'm sorry if you have had problems, but I doubt they're as widespread as you think, or there would be uproar.

but firewall breaks all sorts of things abd is as annoying as the Vista mother-may-I prompts giving warnings even after applications have been placed on the white list,

Not here, same level of warnings as before, plus a more informative warning about apps when first launch. What all sorts of things does it break for you?

DHCP doesn't acquire addresses properly and firewall must be disabled, airport turned off then back on for it to work again.

Works for me with no such problems.

I've had 2 kernel panics in 2 days (I never experienced a kernel panic under tiger). I have also had the OS go unstable and Finder et al will crash randomly until restart. Final Cut Pro 6.0 crashes all the time doing things as simple moving the timeline. Spotlight crashes and reloads while doing searches sometimes.

No kernel panics or weird behaviour here. This sounds like a more serious problem, have you checked the memory and disk? Are you sure nothing else has changed?

Disk Utility can't repair disk permissions or recognizes them as incorrect when they are not (not sure which).

Haven't tried to repair disk permissions as I had zero problems with them.

Java is completely screwed! No java 6 yet and javascript commands in safari do bizarre things sometimes like launching outside applications such as finder instead of doing what they are intended to do within the application!

Presumably you know that javascript is nothing to do with java (I'm sure you will claim to in a reply). I think this comment and replies best sums up the situation with java - people are more worried by what might be than by the present situation. Frankly the stuff about javascript makes me think you don't know what you're talking about, and Java 6 should be the least of your concerns.

Apple has some serious work to do if they want to keep Leopard installed on users' machines - and they had better do it fast!

Well, it's staying on my machine, since :

All my old apps work
I've had no problems
Time machine is a great backup system
Spotlight is faster
Coverflow in the Finder is great
Quicklook works a treat and saves launching apps just for a quick look at a spreadsheet etc.
Safari 3 is a nice improvement on V.2
The finder is improved

Those are the reasons off the top of my head.

Re:as an apple user...

[Phroggy]

Java is completely screwed! No java 6 yet and javascript commands in safari do bizarre things sometimes like launching outside applications such as finder instead of doing what they are intended to do within the application! Leopard does not include Java 6, but neither does Tiger, so you haven't lost anything there.

Just to be clear, you're aware that Java and JavaScript have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other? JavaScript was originally going to be called LiveScript, until some marketing weenie at Netscape decided it would be better to confuse everyone.

What kinds of things are you trying to do in Safari that cause external applications to launch?

Re:as an apple user...

[Rocketship Underpant]

If you're having kernel panics, you either have some weird haxies left over from Tiger, or you have defective hardware (probably RAM or the hard disk) and should get Apple to replace it. That's almost always the case with OS X, with the rare exception of consistently reproducible kernel panics under unusual circumstances.

We have a few Macs in my house, both Intel and PPC-based, and not a single crash or kernel panic yet.

(By the way, who cares about repairing disk permissions?)

Re:as an apple user...

[taskiss]

You lost credibility when you mentioned that Disk Utility can't repair permissions. I'm guessing that you have almost 0 UNIX skills, are trying to run older software without testing it or upgrading to the "Leopard" release version, and don't have a clue about Java, since "No java 6 yet" isn't true at all. There is a development version available on Apple's developers site - "Java for Mac OS X 10.4, Release 6 delivers improved reliability and compatibility for Java 2 Platform Standard Edition 5.0 and Java 1.4 on Mac OS X 10.4.10 and later. This release updates J2SE 5.0 to version 1.5.0_13 and Java 1.4 to version 1.4.2_16." It doesn't surprise me that you have problems. I guess you lose at UNIX.

Re:as an apple user...

[Jeremi]

That would be my first thought except that I didn't have ANY problems under tiger. I have also run a stress test on the RAM and didn't find any problems.

Funny you should mention that; I upgraded my mom's Mini to Leopard this last weekend. Two days after I did the upgrade, the mini's RAM completely failed (the computer wouldn't even boot, it just gave three beeps on startup, aka "no RAM installed"). Okay yes, I had installed 3rd party RAM, but that RAM had been working fine for 3 months and the Leopard upgrade was software only (okay, and adding an external firewire drive for Time Machine to use).

Eventually I just took the mini to the Apple Store and paid the $300 to replace the RAM with "real" Apple RAM, and now everything works fine again... but it still seems suspicious that the RAM would die so soon after the Leopard upgrade. I can't think of how a software change could cause a hardware failure, though.

Re:as an apple user...

[zenwaves]

I've installed 10.5 on twenty Intel-iMacs, two G4 Powerbooks, and one G4 MacMini ... Other than the custom RIP software for my HP large format printer, and my HP 4370 scanner drivers no longer working (which does remind me a bit of the snarky 'Don 't Give Up On Vista' ad) I have no problems. Oh yeah, the twenty iMacs live in a 10.2 server network - again, no problems. Jon

Re:as an apple user...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had 2 kernel panics in 2 days (I never experienced a kernel panic under tiger). I have also had the OS go unstable and Finder et al will crash randomly until restart. Final Cut Pro 6.0 crashes all the time doing things as simple moving the timeline. Spotlight crashes and reloads while doing searches sometimes.

As an occasional Final Cut Pro user, that sucks to hear. I'm not planning to upgrade until some time next year, and sticking with 10.4 for a while. But I really *want* to upgrade, if only for Time Machine. Even in 10.4, Final Cut Pro 6.0 did crash on me for almost no reason one time. It'll also crash when I do something like try to import a video format it can't handle (can't entirely blame it for that, but it should at least handle it gracefully). But I'm problem free most of the time when I'm not trying to do something funky.

One of my reasons not to upgrade to 10.5 was I didn't want to risk screwing up Final Cut in the middle of project I'm currently working on, so I'm glad I made that decision.

Going slightly off-topic here. The iLife '08 apps are totally buggy on 10.4, I regret ever upgrading. Maybe they are more stable in 10.5, but I don't know (there is one bug that exists in 10.4 but not 10.5). My main complaint is with iPhoto, which has become complete garbage to me thanks to its constant crashing on basic operations (like rotating a photo). iMovie and GarageBand have some bugs as well, but I don't use them anymore. Logic 8.0 is actually just as easy to use as GarageBand, so I've switched to that. Maybe they make their consumer apps suck so bad that you have to upgrade to their more pro apps. It's good to be a pirate in those cases, but sucks for people who want to be legal.

Java is completely screwed! No java 6 yet and javascript commands in safari do bizarre things sometimes like launching outside applications such as finder instead of doing what they are intended to do within the application!

Just so you know, Javascript has nothing to do with Java. Javascript (aka ECMAScript) is an entirely different language and does not rely on Java at all.

I've actually had some problems with 10.4 recently. I think it was mostly 10.4.11, but maybe some of that was 10.4.10, can't remember. I had one crash recently just as described in the Slashdot blurb. And the Dock froze on me and also parts of the menu were not working, and it would not reboot until I SSHed in and kill -9'd the Dock process. Maybe 10.5 is much worse, but 10.4 isn't perfect either.

I own a G4 Mac Mini and Mac Pro, and I have never had this smooth "just works" experience from either of them. Nor has anyone I know who owns an Intel Mac. Don't be fooled by Apple's marketing department. There's a lot of good reasons to own one, but don't buy into the "just works" hype otherwise you will be severely disappointed. They have buggy software and hardware just like every other software and hardware company. It seems be mostly due to the transition to Intel things have become much less stable, but things aren't perfect on my PowerPC G4 either.

Re:as an apple user...

[datapharmer]

yes, i am aware that they are different. Tiger had Java 6 available if you looked for it (beta since removed). As for javascript I was trying to do this, it worked before and still does sometimes:
javascript:void((function(){var%20a=location.href.replace(/^http\:\/\/(.*)$/,%22$1%22);location.href=%22http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:%22+escape(a);})())
It replaces the address location with the google cache version of the page if available. it is really handy.

Re:as an apple user...

[datapharmer]

1) I admin a number of unix systems and understand that just fine. Why would me saying that a program apple ships not doing what it is supposed to means I don't know anything about Unix? That is nonsensical. I can use fsck just fine. This does not excuse disk utility not working.
2)All my software is either approved for leopard or is BETA and any quirky beta programs have been removed. My install was a clean install not an upgrade.
3) That pre-release of java is not available anymore and is not leopard compatible (unless you know of a version I don't - I checked the apple developer site)

Re:as an apple user...

[Phroggy]

Very weird. Nothing there should ever launch the Finder for any reason. Here's a simplified version you might try, though:

javascript:location.href=%22http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:%22+escape(location.href.replace(/^http\:\/\/(.*)$/,%22$1%22));

Problem with his computer.

[mc moss]

The kernel panics are problems specific to his computer. The majority of macs don't have that problems so he should quit whining to us and talk to Apple. As for the other things he complains about, those are really cosmetic changes that some people like and others don't. The problems with Vista are more than just cosmetic. Unlike Vista, Leopard doesn't require 512 mb of ram to run all of it's features and still runner slow than the previous os. People aren't still running out and buying 10.4 instead of 10.5 in droves as they would buy xp over vista. Also compare the retail price (129-leopard, 200+ for all the different vistas).

Re:Problem with his computer.

[bigstrat2003]

To all of the things you mentioned, the key word is yet. If Leopard is going to do as poorly as Vista (I don't use Macs, I can make no value judgement of it one way or the other), it's had nowhere near as long to build up an image of suck in people's minds. You're being unreasonable in saying that Leopard's lack of backlash proves a damn thing... there hasn't been enough time for any sort of real backlash to build up.

For the record, as long as I'm at it, I can just as easily say that people's Vista problems are specific to their machines, because I use Vista, and it runs like a dream. Stable, runs all my apps/games (except KOTOR) properly... nothing more to ask, really. And no, it doesn't run slower than Windows XP. There are other very satisfied Vista users, they've even posted on slashdot. So clearly, the people who are having problems are just having issues with their specific computers.

Re:Problem with his computer.

[onefriedrice]

Seconded. A G4 with Tiger used to be my main machine, but it's taken 2nd place to a new machine I built, and I got Vista Basic for it. I really like Tiger and I probably would have gotten an iMac if I wasn't a starving student, but this machine was a lot cheaper to build than a comparable Apple computer (~iMac range). I still use the G4 for OS X development and other things, but my point is this: Vista has generally been really stable for me. Here are the 2 things I hate about Vista:

1- The taskbar (I keep it on the right side) does not stay the same size I set it as whenever I play games which capture the screen, even if I lock the taskbar. This drives me insane. I get done playing a game and I return to my desktop with a taskbar twice as big or sometimes smaller. The actual new size varies, but there is a size it usually goes to. SO ANNOYING.
2- Under some circumstances, Vista won't come out of sleep. It actually causes my motherboard to sound an alarm until I reboot the machine. Who knows what that's about....

These problems are certainly not show-stoppers for me, but if Apple would release a reasonably priced gaming computer I would have just assumed use OS X which is normally great.

*rant* Currently if you want to do serious gaming on a Mac you have to go with the Mac Pro which is way expensive. All they would need to do is outfit a computer like the iMac with a decent video card and perhaps faster components and price it at ~ $1,500 and it would sell like hotcakes IMHO. They should be able to build a decent machine at that price and still have a decent margin. *end rant*

Re:Problem with his computer.

[Scruffy Dan]

I don't want a faster iMac, I want a slower Mac pro.

RE: Problem with his computer.

[Kolie]

*applause*

Why is there so much nay-saying about Vista. I run it on two of my computers and haven't had a SINGLE issue. Besides the UAC, but everyone disables that, right? I do quite a bit of everything on these computers, and I don't have time to babysit a decrepit OS all day. What I need, Vista gets done and it does it right, without fault.

Re:Problem with his computer.

[specific]

That is usually the case. Most of the time when people are complaining about their computer probelms (in vague & ignorant terms) they are leaving out some critical piece of information that they either forgot about or weren't aware of. Usually this is a) something they clicked, b) something they installed that was incompatible, c) malfunctioning hardware..... etc. There is always some undisclosed detail that would make all the sense in the world if these twits only new wtf they were talking about in the first place. I talk to these half-wits on a daily basis, as repairing their systems is my job.

Re:Problem with his computer.

[mattgreen]

I can just as easily say that people's Vista problems are specific to their machines, because I use Vista, and it runs like a dream. But that can't be right, as it clashes with the groupthink about Vista!

One man's opinion

[dancingmad]

Normally I don't reply to these kind of articles, as they tend to be obvious flame bait, but the whole PC Mag article seems very anecdotal. As far as my own experience is concerned, upgrading to Leopard was the easiest OS upgrade I've ever done and I've had pretty much no issues since I upgraded. I've never had the machine crash or freeze.

The only real nitpicks I have with Leopard are that the UI occasionally seems slower and some of the UI choices are baffling (the menu bar can be grody with some wallpapers, I ended up switching off the dock shelf, and the folder icons are a huge step backwards) and even those nitpicks are worth it to get a UI that is otherwise relatively clean and consistent (under Tiger I was using a UI called Uno. Before upgrading, I uninstalled it, and Tiger's UI is really grating).

Re:One man's opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

The only real nitpicks I have with Leopard are that the UI occasionally seems slower and some of the UI choices are baffling (the menu bar can be grody with some wallpapers, I ended up switching off the dock shelf, and the folder icons are a huge step backwards)

Careful: you sound close to being an apologist. The menubar is kind of, umm, important. If you make it worse, it's not just a "nitpick". 10.5's UI is significantly worse in many ways:
  - the menubar: transparent!?!
  - the dock: screwy perspective, a crosswalk(?), and WTF is up with the blue glowing dots?
  - the windows: um, is darker supposed to be better?
  - the icons: at first glance, all folders look exactly the same!
  - the toolbars: Mail.app-ugly, now in all your apps
  - the finder: ...still not fixed, but we made your files look like iTunes albums

I grant that there are a couple new UI features that are actually good, like Quick View, and Spaces (though I haven't used it long enough to see if it's more annoying than helpful), and they finally made a Network control panel that rocks. But did they have to take every single UI feature from 10.4 and make it worse?

It's a shame there isn't a GNOME/KDE duality on the Mac so the Aqua team could hear the giant sucking sound that happens when you screw up a design so completely and have a nearby competitor.

Re:One man's opinion

[supun]

I wouldn't put too much stock in his review. Seems like he's miffed at the Mac advertisement and bitchy because of it.

He stated, in the video, that he had difficulty setting up Time Machine. All you do is plug in a USB drive, tell Time Machine to use it, tell Time Machine to exclude certain directories if you want, then turn it on, done. It's only got like three preferences. It took little effort setting it up to work over a AFP mounted drive on my Linux box and he can't figure out the most simplest way to set it up?

Re:One man's opinion

[dancingmad]

Well, I don't mean to sound like an apologist - I like Apple, but they need gutchecks, often.

That said, the semi-transparent menubar hasn't bothered me that much, or I would have switched it off, using some terminal voodoo. The darker windows don't bother at all and for consistency, they're great. I would have preferred Uno's behavior - brushed metal windows having the darker smooth look and normal windows having a lighter smooth look, but it's not that bad.

Like I said I changed the dock to the flat version using the terminal and like it much better.

The icons suck and to me are the worst part of the whole UI.

The mail buttons don't bother me much.

The finder isn't great, but I can do what I need and coverflow is actually pretty cool in some situations (browsing different versions of my some word files, my wallpapers folder, my general download folder).

There isn't a UI competitor to OS X, but OS X users are really militant. Take Uno as an example. There's already been fixes I'm using to make Quicklook work better with directories and zip files, programs that let you change the dock style, and bring hierarchal menus back to the dock. I'm sure a lot of these problems will be hammered by independent developers. Not that it takes Apple off the hook, but a lot of those things don't bother me as much either.

Re:One man's opinion

[misanthrope101]

Yes, but anecdotal evidence that confirms my preexisting opinion is actually evidence, whereas anecdotal evidence that runs counter to my preeexisting opinion is, well, just a bunch of anecdotes, and you know those don't constitute evidence.

I've used Win95, 98, 2000, and XP. Though I hated the aesthetics of XP, I had problems with none of them. I've used Linux, and it too did what I wanted, minus being able to install some software on some distros (probably attributable to my own igorance). I've had a MacBook for ~6 months, with no problems. But during all of this time, I've heard and read complaint after complaint about all of these operating systems, about how this or that is garbage, unsuitable for serious users, and so on. I'd guess about 10%, if that, have viable complaints. Most have unreasonable expectations, or just like to bitch. Add that to the fact that people get emotionally defensive about a decision that has no bearing on what kind of person you are--what OS you use--and we're doomed to keep hearing this crap.

Between the bare metal and the end user experience are tens of millions of lines of code, all typed by people of different abilities, outlooks, and so on. I'm amazed that this thing even works at all. Yes, I wish it worked better, faster, more intuitively (but for whom?), but overall I've been happy with my experience on all of these operating systems. Currently I prefer OS X, though I haven't upgraded to Leopard yet. When I do, it may delete my data, catch my MacBook on fire, and send a squad of goons to my house to beat me up. I'll say "that sucks!" and go on with my life. I'll probably still use Apple products the next day, because I like their stuff.

Re:One man's opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't heard "grody" since 1984. Thank you. To the Max.

Re:One man's opinion

[bredk]

I must say I'm all for Leopard. I had to try it, so I backed up everything i had and went with it. I havent had a crash, and all my programs work even though I copied them from 10.4. Even stuff like Quicksilver (except for the plugins, since they've changed Mail, iTunes, Contacts, etc), iStat Menus.

As for the title: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/tds-question-mark.mov

I'm using Leopard right now

[Anonymous Coward]

And it never cras

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[chubs730]

very original

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[Frankie70]

I'm using Leopard right now And it never cras



Before Leopard crashed, it managed to click on
the submit button for you, but unfortunately couldn't
type the 'h' before clicking the submit button. Maybe
Cougar (or whatever is the next release) will fix that.

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[Anonymous Coward]

"And it never cras....kl;jasdkfjla!@#$@#?$>@#$#%#%^% lost carrier"

Stick to the script, boy!!

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the parent comment is a troll. If his computer had actually crashed, how would the message have been POST'd to Slashdot? It's not like the browser detects an impending crash and posts whatever you've written, it just dies with the OS, without sending anything.

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[debrain]

Apparently it auto-submits to slashdot before it crashes.

Classy.

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Me never cra

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you figured that out all by yourself. Where do I sign up for your newsletter?

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like the browser detects an impending crash and posts whatever you've written

i hear they're adding this feature to the next Leopard patch due to popular demand.

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he was using Leopard's new text-to-speech software to dictate the post?

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[__aawdrj2992]

Maybe Cougar (or whatever is the next release) will fix that.

That would be OS X Thundercougarfalconbird.

Re:I'm using Leopard right now

[sootman]

It's bad enough that there's one retard on Slashdot who didn't get this joke, but I would love to meet the TWO--not one, but TWO--retards who modded him "+1, Informative"

Issues with Leopard

[crumbz]

I have had Leopard installed for about a month and a half on my G4 1.5GHz Power Book. No problems, not a single lock-up. I upgraded from 10.3.9 and Leopard runs just about as fast, with some apps loading and running a bit faster. I upgraded mid-semester and was admittedly concerned about running 10.5.0 version of the OS (now 10.5.1) but now I am completely comfortable with the stability. From work and personal experience, to compare the stability of a version upgrade of Apple's OSX to an upgrade from any of the following: 3.11 to Win 95 to Win 98 to Win 2000 to XP, with a side track down the WinNT route (the best experience by far) is simply fallacious. No comparison, and that is why my mission critical apps a run on Unix, ala OSX.
My two cents, of course.

Time will cure all wounds

[jellomizer]

Some Differences as well.
Vista was Years Late Leopard was Months Late.
Vista had these problem for almost a year now. Leopard has only been out for a month

Yes Leopard isn't as Bullet proof and free of problems as Apple admits. I had a failed upgrade where I needed to erase my disk clean to get it to work. And after that I still have some minor problems... But the problems are minor and they remind me of an older version of the OS... Codename Tiger. Yes when Tiger was released it had a slew of minor glitches and bugs just like Leopard did.

When Tiger was released Apple was still using Power PC Processors, By the time Intel Systems were released and huge amounts of people were migrating to Apple Tiger was Well in the Mid Cycle where most of glitches were cleared. So most people are use to the solid Mid-Cycle OS. But Tiger had a bunch of glitches, also Panther, Jaguar. When they were in the early Pre 10.x.4 release. It happens in early releases. Similar things happen in Linux too, but the Linux Zealots minimize it just like the Apple Fan Boys do. Stating it is the problem with 3rd party software or there are super simple workaround, etc...

Also there is the issue of the greater number of Mac Users, just the fact that more people are using the OS there is more bugs that are found by users who don't know to fix them. For example I had to hard reboot my Mac this week because of some glitch with Parallels, Going to sleep in middle of a disk write on a USB disk, While asleep the USB Disk was unplugged and when it returned it didn't want to completely wakeup like the program was trying to write to the disk (this may have happened in Tiger too, I was doing something I rarely do). But what happened was the disk got corrupted so things were running poorly. So I rebooted in Single user mode and did an fsck on my disk and fix the problems. Easy for a Unix/Linux/Mac Expert. But if they are a newbie use to using windows this would cause them to reinstall the OS. Many of the people using the older versions of OS X where Well experienced with Macs, and a lot of the Newcomers in the PPC days were people converting from Linux to Macs. Today Macs have a wide base not at all prepared for handling new version bugs.

Things are not as bleak as Vista is, it is actually normal stuff. We just have forgotten it over time.

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[pizzach]

I agree with you whole heartedly. But don't forget new users can just boot from the install CD to get to Disk Utility to check their disks when all hell breaks loose. Well, that is...uh...assuming that they notice the special menus at the top prior to the install screens.

Disk Utility is supposed to run the fsck command anyway. So if you are in the know, single user mode is easier and faster.

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[Jesus_666]

Yeah, but some of the problems with Leopard stem from nothing but poor design choice. Like the $DEITY-awful transparent toolbar and the fact that you can't turn that POS of. Thank you, Apple, for mandating that the upper 30 pixels of all wallpapers have to be uniformly bright if I want to actually use that menubar. Even though the menubar is only 20 pixels tall, the damn lookit-me-I'm-Vista blur effect means that if you just blnk the top 20 pixels you still get parts of the wallpaper shining through.

Or stacks. Stacks would be somewhat tolerable if they had left in some way to get back the old hierarchical menu navigation. But no, one of the most useful aspects of the Dock had to go, because Spotlight Is The Only True Application Launcher. And nobody ever put anything besides /Applications in their Dock, especially nothing with more than thirty files or even subfolders. Uh-huh.

Stuff like that is very unlikely to be fixed by Apple because that would mean killing off part of the new Leopard look. Apple will waltz on confidently, leaving users to buy third-party Dock replacements and apps that put blank windows under the menubar.

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[noidentity]

Sorry, I just can't help commenting on your random capitalization. Please, take a look sometime. It's bizarre.

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[John Jamieson]

Apple cult members are way too forgiving. If "I had a failed upgrade where I needed to erase my disk clean to get it to work" I would be seriously upset! (and I have done hundereds of installs in my life)

The truth is that Apple has put the Mac users at the BOTTOM of the priority list, pulled way too much talent for other projects, skimped on testing... and none of that matters because the cult members will just take the hit and smile.

Note before you flip out on me, I am not implying that ALL Mac users belong to "the cult".

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[rizzo320]

As a long time Mac user, I agree with some of your gripes. However, easy solutions are already available...

Like the $DEITY-awful transparent toolbar and the fact that you can't turn that POS of.

Here's an easy terminal command to get rid of the transparency, by first modifying the LaunchDaemon for WindowServer, and then, fix the permissions on it after modification.

sudo defaults write /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.WindowServer 'EnvironmentVariables' -dict 'CI_NO_BACKGROUND_IMAGE' 0
sudo chmod 644 /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.WindowServer.plist

Reboot, and what you get is the "opaque" menu bar that you would see on older Macs that don't have a high end video card. I get the "opaque" menu bar by default (no modification) on my PowerBook G4 867.

And nobody ever put anything besides /Applications in their Dock, especially nothing with more than thirty files or even subfolders. Uh-huh.

I'm not a fan of Stacks, however, you would be very surprised how many people aren't aware they can use the Dock for things other than Applications. Honestly, I think this is why Apple is going in the "Stacks" direction, to make more users aware of what they can do with the Dock. I think the main problem is there are a lot of power users out there that were already pretty happy with the functionality of the Dock, and Apple "went and screwed it up". I welcome the change. I didn't think I'd be using Spaces, Expose, or Spotlight either, but eventually, I got it working the way I wanted. It's not the end of the world, and I have the feeling the new Dock will evolve over time. If you don't feel like waiting, why not try out Quay which brings back hierarchical popup menus for the Leopard Dock without hacking or modifying any system frameworks or libraries.

Although the article discusses all the problems with Vista and Leopard, I want to make one very important point. Leopard is much faster overall on a clean install than both Tiger, and Vista. I have a partitioned iMac Core 2 Duo, and had fresh installs of Leopard, Tiger, and Vista installed for testing (just barebones, no additional applications installed). Leopard's performance noticeably faster than Tiger or Vista. You can't say that about Vista vs XP on a fresh install. XP will be faster with most benchmarks. Leopard has some bugs to get worked out over the next couple of months, but, I must say that PERFORMANCE is not one of them... and performance goes a long way in keeping users happy.

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[Jesus_666]

If you don't feel like waiting, why not try out Quay [brockerhoff.net] which brings back hierarchical popup menus for the Leopard Dock without hacking or modifying any system

It does have the same problem the various Dock replacements have: I have to pay some third party money in order to get back functionality that Apple used to provide in all previous iterations of OS X.

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[jellomizer]

I would be so if that hasn't happened to me while trying to upgrade the following OS's onto my Systems...

Windows,
Linux (Many Distributions),
Solaris,
FreeBSD,
OpenBSD...

OS Upgrades are difficult espectially if you have configured your system well past the defaults. There were things on my Tiger that didn't work well. I couldn't unfilevault my home directory, Adobe products couldn't update itself for some odd reason. Then when I went to Leopard the first time things just magnified itself. I figure the esisting problems were there and when the OS upgraded it made it worse because it didn't know how to handle these bad conditions. It happends. Hence backing up before I did the upgrade.

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[jellomizer]

So it sounds like your OS is working fine then. You are in the level of Nit-Picking. For stacks you don't need to use them, I personally find them handy for some usages. But if you don't like it then don't use it. The Transparent Bar some like it too, at first I hated it but after time I am kinda ok with it. My wife loves it because it now matches her background picture.
Yes it would be nice if you can choose if you wan't it on or off, or change the transparency level using the normal interface. But that is additional features not a bug.

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[Jesus_666]

Hey, given OS X 10.3 and 10.4, losing one of the most convenient functionality (hierarchical Dock folders) is somewhere in the vincinity of being a major disaster. OS X has been rock solid for quite some time now, so nitpicking is where it's been at for years. (Although I did manage to reliably take down Leopard, that was due to a faulty Parallels install.)

Re:Time will cure all wounds

[rizzo320]

It does have the same problem the various Dock replacements have: I have to pay some third party money in order to get back functionality that Apple used to provide in all previous iterations of OS X.

Well at least the first tip I gave you was free :-)

All I can say is...

[greenguy]

...Ubuntu is looking better all the time. On seven machines over three years, it's crashed once on me. And I'm pretty sure that was a hardware thing.

Re:All I can say is...

[falcon5768]

most OS X issues tend to be hardware related, or very poorly written software. I have almost never hit a snag that was cause by Apple themselves.

Re:All I can say is...

[DanielG42]

Normally OSx is running on Apple hardware.

Re:All I can say is...

[falcon5768]

last I looked Apple didnt force you to use their keyboard, their mouse, their hard drives....

Lot more to the term "hardware" than the computer.

Re:All I can say is...

[droopy16]

That is the most sarcastic remark I've seen - well done :)

No

[scifi451]

I have had Leopord installed since it came out and maybe once have had the grey screen of death or what ever you want to call it. So not a universal problem.

And Microsoft always admits problems?

[edwardpickman]

Remember Microsoft actually advertised an OS crashing less than the previous version. I didn't dive into Leopard because I wanted to give it a change to settle in. Apple has a good track record in recent years but they've had a stumbles in the past. I'd be curious if the problems were on all versions or just upgrades? Leopard has some fundimental changes so it's not entirely surprising there are some stability issues. I've got to wait until my current project is done anyway so they have three or four months to shake out the problems before I have to worry. On my Windows machines crashes are a daily occurance on good days so half a dozen crashes doesn't exactly scare me.

Re:And Microsoft always admits problems?

[Kastigador]

On my Windows machines crashes are a daily occurance on good days so half a dozen crashes doesn't exactly scare me. This has to be an exageration of the fact. I have rolled out, one by one, hundreds of XP boxes and a dozen or so Vista boxes. Actually seeing one crashing that often means something is seriously fkd. Usually either your apps suck or your hardware is flakey. I'd bet the latter any day of the week.

I support developers testing the limits of XP every day. On their Dell D820 laptops they will run two 1 gig VMWare Workstation dev environments off of external eSata drives via their PC Express card eSata adapter. Running simultaneously Outlook 2007, Communicator 2007(read bloated), streaming media with winamp, browsing the web(firefox), and finally using heavier microsoft intranet apps like Sharepoint. These power users easily use every bit of their 4gb of memory and fill up their 120gb internal HD's with random programs and media. they have local admin rights and know just enough to be dangerous when customizing their OS. Yet, if they have a reoccuring crash, they will instantly complain to me about it because I will offer to build a replacement laptop and let them swap out, minimizing their dev downtime. This is a very, very rare occurrence, and when it does happen it's usually bad hardware(hard drives almost always).

Furthermore, I just got a D830 for myself(one of three) and we chose to install Windows Vista x64. It tooks some time to locate all the proper drivers but I've been using it for 3 weeks now and it hasn't crashed once.

I'm no Microsoft fan by any means as I support plenty of their woefully half-baked, re-branded garbage in my company's environment. But I can' help but view these OS bashing claims of infamy as largely people who prefer alternative OS's and are frustrated by MS's dominance in the area of available apps. Windows XP and Vista are simply not that unstable.

Re:And Microsoft always admits problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your windows machines crash daily, you either have shitty hardware components or are doing something really screwy. I've been using Vista for the past 6 months now and I've NEVER had a crash yet.

Re:And Microsoft always admits problems?

[John Jamieson]

While I have a LOT of experience with MS products I am sure NOT a fan of the company.

That being said... If Vista is crashing like this you have serious problems, and it is NOT likely with vista.

I find problems with memory and bad Power Supplies are quite common really and frustrate the average user.
I hope this is the case and this post is legit. (The last fanboi at work that was making claims like this about XP turned out to not even own a "MS based PC", ever since then I have taken claims like this with a healthy dose of salt )

Re:And Microsoft always admits problems?

[John Jamieson]

OK, after rereading your post I smell troll. Sorry, if this is a bit harsh.

You are claiming "Windows machines" so you have more than one, and they crash once a day on a good day. Either you are on Windows 95, and thus don't deserve the right to post, or you are full of it, or you are not smart enough to fix serious errors in multiple PC's(reboots of this frequency would drive an intelligent person to find the solution or become a neo Luddite).

I run my manditory MS OS's at work VERY hard, and though I detest MS the truth is I only reboot them every 4-12 weeks, and they almost never have crashed on me since windows 98, and back then my Mac was even less stable, and my slackware linux was a pain to install(so none were perfect).

Leopard finally stabilized on my MacBook Pro 2.4G

[marsipan]

I experienced some bad crashes under Leopard in my first week after upgrade, including: keyboard hangs http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5787571 & crazy jumping pointer http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5869864 but after the 10.5.1 update & a good old-fashioned PRAM reset, it's been stable for at least a week! uptime 21:30 up 8 days, 4:49, 3 users, load averages: 0.16 0.22 0.24

I might be missing something....

[8127972]

... But I simply don't see parents confronting Jobs they way that Ballmer was confronted at Gartner recently. Plus Pretty much every review on Leopard that I've read seems to be positive (more or less). I also did a quick Google Search using the terms "Leopard Problems" and came up with this list where most of these have solutions (unlike some of Vista's issues).

I say the article is FUD. Maybe John Hodgman paid him?

Similar Issues

[Nutsquasher]

I've had similar experiences with Leopard and 3rd party apps. Specifically, Parallels had substantial issues (build 5160). Their latest beta (build 5570 - http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/beta) appears to have fixed issues I've had with kernel panics, related to Parallels.

Their developers noted that Apple made substantial changes to Leopard between Release Candidate and Final. A number of other apps I had broke, though most were patched within about 1-2 weeks.

The following crash has happened three times since installing Leopard. It appears to be a Wireless driver issue, and appears to occur at random. There's an Apple thread about this (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5867190). Anyone have a clue as to what's going on? Could this be Parallels related, even though it occurs when Parallels isn't even running?

Fri Nov 23 19:14:00 2007
panic(cpu 0 caller 0x0039CD77): "m_free: freeing an already freed mbuf"@/SourceCache/xnu/xnu-1228.0.2/bsd/kern/uipc_mbuf.c:2742
Backtrace, Format - Frame : Return Address (4 potential args on stack)
0x3422f978 : 0x12b0e1 (0x455670 0x3422f9ac 0x133238 0x0)
0x3422f9c8 : 0x39cd77 (0x48e03c 0x30141200 0x8594fe0 0x1)
0x3422fa08 : 0x39d073 (0x300cd000 0x8 0x3422fa58 0x1)
0x3422fa28 : 0x8f9b87 (0x301b1000 0x0 0x20 0x2)
0x3422fb98 : 0x8f9ec5 (0x23a782c8 0x23a7a150 0x3422fbc8 0x1a6d13)
0x3422fce8 : 0x90520b (0x23b71004 0x0 0x46 0xbf4b40)
0x3422fe68 : 0x8d584a (0x23a784c0 0x0 0x4203 0x49f76d0)
0x3422feb8 : 0x8d6f3f (0x95dc80 0x95dc84 0x49f76b0 0x135e09)
0x3422ff48 : 0x8d54b7 (0x42d4804 0x0 0x1361b0 0x19ccc1)
0x3422ff78 : 0x13e987 (0x42d4c94 0x42d4804 0x1a136f 0x58e46b0)
0x3422ffc8 : 0x19e2ec (0x0 0x0 0x1a10b5 0x49f76b0)
Backtrace terminated-invalid frame pointer 0
            Kernel loadable modules in backtrace (with dependencies):
                  com.apple.driver.AirPort.Atheros(300.22)@0x8d4000->0x95efff
                        dependency: com.apple.iokit.IO80211Family(200.7)@0x8b6000
                        dependency: com.apple.iokit.IOPCIFamily(2.4)@0x63c000
                        dependency: com.apple.iokit.IONetworkingFamily(1.6.0)@0x64c000

BSD process name corresponding to current thread: kernel_task

Mac OS version:
9B18

Kernel version:
Darwin Kernel Version 9.1.0: Wed Oct 31 17:46:22 PDT 2007; root:xnu-1228.0.2~1/RELEASE_I386
System model name: MacBookPro2,2 (Mac-F42187C8)

Re:Similar Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be the same issue that early version of Parallels had.

I remember after the first few installs, my machine would Kernal Panic when someone connected to it over AFP. SMB connections seemed to be OK. The mention of Networking family kernals could b a sign that the issue has resurfaced in some form or another.

I mean, they can talk

[kramulous]

Pretty rich coming from these guys. I go to click to play the video and I get ye olde' "HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found"

There ARE people that enjoy beta-testing...

[grantek]

...unfortunately Apple doesn't have an "OSX sid" that you can track for free if you want this stuff :)

they hosed the interface

[acvh]

I've been using OS X since the .0 release, and this is the first time that I regret an upgrade. They made many little changes to little things that drive me crazy. Moving menu items just because they can, redesigning icons to be unreadable, adding features that are useless, etc.

I have had the feeling that Apple went a little Microsoft with Leopard.

Re:they hosed the interface

[HopeOS]

Why is this marked informative? There's no content here! What things are changed? What menu items are moved? What icons are unreadable? What features are useless? I swear... what passes for moderation around here?

• The system is updated; therefore it has changed. This is normal and good.
• Menu items move for lots of reasons, some of them good. What specifically are you concerned about?
• Unreadable icons is an issue, but not something that Apple is known for. Which ones are you having trouble with?
• If you find the features useless, don't use them... most of the new features are huge, anticipated, and necessary.

Ugh.

-Hope

Re:they hosed the interface

[acvh]

The "Move to Trash" item in the cmd-click(right click) menu in the Finder not only was moved from where it has been since 10.0, but it moves even more depending on what kind of file you cmd-click on. No longer is this menu confined to one menu, but, in a Microsoftian way, it now has a "more" item that will provide access to items that Apple has deemed less important.

Applications, Documents and Download folders have dark blue on slightly lighter blue folder icons. Squint and you can maybe tell the difference.

Stacks is a new feature rendered useless by its method of invocation, and its choice of which icon to show in the dock. Click on a folder and it opens up and tilted to the right, like a not quite hard penis. The icon you will see in the dock is the icon of the first file in the folder; so if you want to have your applications folder in the dock for quick access to apps, the icon looks like your address book. The least intuitive "feature" Apple has introduced since the IIgs.

The whole point here is that Apple has produced a decidedly non-Apple-like upgrade. I left out the details because it seems that anyone who is actually interested already knew them. My apologies.

Re:they hosed the interface

[mr_matticus]

1. Move to Trash is always the top item after the first separator, unless it is a packagage file, in which case it follows "Show Package Contents." This is consistent, non-arbitrary, and a GUI improvement to reduce mouse travel. The addition of new items in the third menu segment (e.g. Quick Look) placed the Trash option too far down and isolated from other file operations, so it was moved to the second segment.

2. The "More" menu now contains third party actions (and Automator) in a single space. It is also non-arbitrary, not dynamic, and not "Microsoftian" in any way. This achieves a shorter context menu while simultaneously opening options for Finder plug-ins, which in turn contradicts your first point: previously, third-party actions appeared in the middle of the "Apple" set of options, making context menus inconsistent. This solves that.

3. The contrast differential is pretty clear on folder icons. You're either fighting memory response or have not configured your workspace in a usable manner if your vision is that poor. In any case, folder icons are hardly a usability issue, and you're free to change them to whatever you want.

4. The stacks "icon pile" is a bit of a gimmick. It works for some uses (like being alerted that your download has finished when the icon appears on top), and not for others (arbitrary folders may appear with identical top icons). There's no need to use fan view (though you have to have a bit of an obsession to find it phallic), and frankly calling it an unintuitive feature because of the icon it uses is more than a little "blustering fool." Yes, it's new. Yes, it would be nice if they added the "Dock folder" view so people like you could just go back to the old way and shut up.

5. None of these details speaks of the pervasive level you implied in your comment. Menu options don't shift around like Windows' hide-and-seek menus, and the fact that "Move to Trash" has been moved higher up in the menu features so prominently in your list of complaints seems capricious at best. With the exception of some limited valid gripes about Stacks, you've mentioned one-off changes that you don't like as representative of a systemic failure. Where's the problem? Finish the thought. You've identified 'problems' (changes) without identifying the problem. I don't see a negative impact anywhere.

Things change. The simple fact of a change is never a problem in and of itself.

Agree and disagree

[duffbeer703]

Leopard has alot of issues, but they are all quality control issues that will eventually get fixed. Apple frankly took on more than it can chew in terms of workload, and it shows. Advertised features like AD integration are just broken, upgrades are hit and miss and there are some really nasty bugs like the Finder issues.

That said, those issues will be gone in 6 months.

Vista's issues are architectural -- they made bad design decisions that make it really, really difficult for business users to migrate. Even Microsoft reps aren't excited about Vista.

Am I that rare? Leopard user with 0 problems

[log0n]

Macbook Pro 17 (2.33 C2D) with
Vista (160GB internal)
Leopard (500GB external FW800)
3 additional external USB Drives (~ 1TB of space)
1 USB DVD burner

I've never had a crash, all of my software has worked perfectly. Of course, I did do a fresh install and selectively moved my old programs back - rather than an Upgrade. 0 problems.

Re:Am I that rare? Leopard user with 0 problems

[harrisg]

I've been running Leopard on my 867MHz G4 12" Powerbook (probably the lowest system it is rated for) and I haven't have any problems aside from Time Machine backups screwing with Spotlight indexing. (I finally turned off Time Machine until the drive got indexed and it's been fine ever since) I also always do a format and clean install with each new 10.x.0 release.

I think most people's problems come from leftover crap on their system. Still, if Apple is going to offer an upgrade install it should work.

Disclaimer: I've been using Macs for over 15 years so I may have slight fanboi tendencies.

Re:Am I that rare? Leopard user with 0 problems

[yabos]

I did an archive and install and I haven't had any problems besides bugs in applications. Archive and install has always worked for me since 10.1.

Oblig. Douglas Adams...

[Viceroy Potatohead]

If you had done your homework, you would have known this, having read the "Beware of the Leopard" sign in the basement of the planning office. Please don't make the same mistake with Microsoft Krikkit.

You've been warned.

they even forgot to test it on their own hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend wasn't very happy when he had to return his hard drive, and then find out a month later that it was because of installing Leotard: http://www.retrodata.co.uk/notice_apple_seagate_drives.php

My experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this is all about our individual experiences with Leopard, I thought I'd add mine here.

1. Installed 1 week after release.
2. No kernel panics or crashes.
3. No other reliability or performance issues.
4. Works great for me.

I don't have any experience with Vista. Maybe some Vista users can add their comments here too.

Leopard = Vista

[trouser]

I can prove this. Using science. Not actual science in the scientific sense but that other science, like when those Jesus freaks tell you the world was created on a Tuesday afternoon in late April, 3012 BC and is held together with sticky tape and toenail clippings. Why do you think Apple switched to Intel? So they could re-skin Vista and pass it off as an operating system in great cat's clothing. Damn cats. Did you ever see that movie The Puma Man? That guy with the powers of a puma which curiously included flying, teleportation and sensing imminent danger. Well Vista/Leopard is just like that, only a little buggy and not so popular with the punters. That's all I have to say on the matter.

That's like asking

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is Cthillary the new David Lee Roth?"

Eh what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Been running 10.5.n for a couple of weeks, no issues.

This article is more than a bit flawed.

[mosch]

In my experience nearly everybody who complains about Leopard being unstable is running some sort of unsanity app (or the logitech drivers). Nobody else really has a problem.

As for the rest of his article, it seems pretty bullshit to me.

Vista Similarity #1: He claims that it's unstable. Most people disagree, a small but extremely vocal group agrees.

Vista Similarity #2: He whines about graphics overload, but then references things that work on even ancient low-end Macs with shitty graphic cards, and claims that everybody is showing them off. I don't think they are.

Vista Similarity #3: He tries to draw equivalence between putting basic network settings three menus deep and Apple deciding that if the dock is on the bottom, that it should have a subtle reflection. Then he complains Apple's new "Cover Flow" is good enough for him, and thus Quick Look was unnecessary. Perhaps he could try not using it, then. To each their own, y'know.

Vista Similarity #4: He claims that Leopard drops packets and loses connections. I have a bunch of Leopard machines on both wired and wireless networks and have seen absolutely no evidence that this is true. He also claims that SMB shares come and go. Again, I'm on networks with SMB shares and have seen absolutely no evidence that this is true.

Vista Similarity #5: He tries to claim that time machine is awful, because it does file-level, not block-level incrementals, it doesn't work on network shares by default, and it defaults to backing up the whole system. Time Machine could use improvement, but it's useful and it will get a *lot* of people backing up their machines for the first time in forever.

Honestly, #5 is the only complaint that has any air of authenticity to me (I've had similar complaints), but it's not like it's a horrific detriment.

There are two options here:
Option 1) This is Ziff-Davis MSFT flamebait.
Option 2) The author of the piece is an idiotic fuck who screwed up his install.

My money is on Both.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[Anonymous Coward]

The author of the piece is an idiotic fuck who screwed up his install.

Haha, nice unbiased rage there, fanboi. What's it like having less marketshare than (excuse me - BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!) Windows 98?

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[Jesus_666]

Similarity #1: Initially, under Leopard Parallels would completely freeze the system. Don't know why, but reinstalling it fixed that. Apart from that I see mainly application-level instability (however, I do occasionally encounter UI rendering errors and app-level crashes, especially in "Leopard only" versions of apps).

Similarity #2: It runs everywhere, but that doesn't mean everyone wants it. The transparent menubar is just awful and there's not even a way to turn it off. A good case of "just because it sounds good on paper doesn't mean everyone will love it".

Similarity #3: I agree with him on this one insofar as the small glowing dots are quote hard to see. The rest is not that bad.

Similarity #4: Didn't notice this one, either. Then again, I don't see many SMB shares so I wouldn't know either way.

Similarity #5: As I don't have the space for a full machine backup I didn't touch Time Machine yet.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[Just Some Guy]

Vista Similarity #5: He tries to claim that time machine is awful, because it does file-level, not block-level incrementals, it doesn't work on network shares by default

How so? I've been backing up to a 100GB CIFS share on my FreeBSD server for a few weeks now. Is that a no-no or something?

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[mosch]

I'm backing up to a FreeBSD Network share as well. That's why I was careful to say 'by default' when I was mentioning his criticism.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[NMerriam]

Similarity #5: As I don't have the space for a full machine backup I didn't touch Time Machine yet.

You can exclude directories and files pretty easily in the preference pane, definitely give it a spin. TM is certainly 1000% better than any backup app that came before, though I would dearly love for it to be able to do block-level backup and diffs.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[Jesus_666]

Interesting. I never would've found out because the pref pane doesn't show you the options button until you have selected a backup volume.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[bint]

In my experience nearly everybody who complains about Leopard being unstable is running some sort of unsanity app (or the logitech drivers). Nobody else really has a problem.

Your experience isn't that impressive to me. Try googling a bit and you'll find lots of peopla having issues with Leopard. For example:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1215730&tstart=60
I have the same problem myself. Just installed Leopard over over Tiger on my new Mac Mini and iMovie crashes every time. There are no extras or strange things as I have done to it as I have *never* been able to start iMovie. Add to this that iTunes has been having problems importing my music (it just didn't show up in the list for no obvious reason) and other small issues and it makes me a quite disappointed new apple customer. Luckily it was easy to partition the disk and make room for ubuntu :)

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're right, I don't have any problems with Vista so all the people out there whining about it are "idiotic fucks" waiting for their paycheck from AAPL."

"And that Ziff-Davis MSFT slave who didn't reformat or uninstall incompatible drivers and pretend to have Leopard working on a maybe 1 out of 1 million faulty macbookpro, how you dare!"

Sorry but your attitude deserves this, when a software has problems and someone bash you because HE isn't having issues, well... just backup your data on those leopard installations ASAP

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[yabos]

Parallels installs kernel extensions so no surprise there that it might cause system instability.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Option 1) You are a AAPL brainless slave who can't accept OSX has problems even while rebooting after a crash.
Option 2) You feel hate toward anyone even thinking OSX is bugged.

My money is on both.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[Jesus_666]

So does VMWare and that works. VMWare's kexts just happen to be a bit more robust (I suspect it might be due to the fact that Parallels uses FUSE; MacFUSE is sensitive to OS versions).

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[yabos]

Yes but my point was the system instability might not be because of the Apple code making the system freeze but rather the kernel extensions not being very good.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[jerquiaga]

"There are two options here:
Option 1) This is Ziff-Davis MSFT flamebait.
Option 2) The author of the piece is an idiotic fuck who screwed up his install."

Option 3) This reply was written in typical Mac fanboy style. The only real answer is that Apple's software is perfect, and any problems are clearly the fault of the person using their software, because it "just works."

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[mosch]

There are plenty of problems with OS X, but there is no way that Ziff-Davis would have published this idiocy if it was about any Windows release. I mean, it's just one douche ranting about a bad experience. It belongs on a whiny little blog, not on a major media website.

Pretty much every computer I've ever owned has pissed me off at some point, be it Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, QNX, VxWorks or FreeBSD. And pretty much always, a system that crashes constantly turns out to be something *other* than a problem that's endemic to the system.

If he could provide some solid bug reports, or evidence that it's not just him screwing up, that'd be great, but he hasn't. And some of his claims (wired networking drops link at random?) are really out there.

It's a shame that slashdot is such a predictably awful site that this troll of an article got links. It made Z-D a lot of money, and I'm sure MSFT and the Z-D masters are happy about that. But it was a waste of everyone's time.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[Jesus_666]

I didn't mean to imply they were. It's possible to freeze (not kernel panic, btw) Leopard, but you need a faulty/incompatible kext, which would bring down any OS. Apart from that (and those rendering issues) it's stable.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[bodester17]

The networking on Leopard is flawed. I work at the IT department for a small university. We, along with many close by colleges and universities, are having trouble with Leopard dropping network connections (both wireless and wired). It will work great until you turn off the computer or let it go into sleep mode. We had 3 Apple Engineers come to our campus last week and more or less said "Oh Crap" and said the problems will need to be addressed in future updates. Check Apple forums, this problem is being complained about all over. The premise that "it works for me, you must just be doing something wrong" is really flawed. Also, I myself have experience multiple crashes while using Leopard on multiple different computers.

Re:This article is more than a bit flawed.

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"Option 1) This is Ziff-Davis MSFT flamebait.
Option 2) The author of the piece is an idiotic fuck who screwed up his install.

My money is on Both."

Option 1 makes no sense. Why would "MSFT" want anyone to run an article saying, "Vista sucks, but Leopard sucks just as badly"? The premise of the article damns both Vista and Leopard, so the article wouldn't be in "MSFT"'s interest.
Now, since your "money is on Both", that means you accept Option 1, which shows that your analytical skills are woeful, brining the rest of your post into question as well.

What a load of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Leopard has been rock solid on 2 of my Macs. I am testing them thoroughly so I can upgrade all my production machines. Sure, there are minor bugs which I could do without, and visual atrocities such as the Dock and translucent menu bar, but functionality-wise it's no different from Tiger.

dark:~ ak$ uptime
19:50 up 18 days, 1:37, 2 users, load averages: 0.60 0.54 0.54

Upgrade or Archive & Install?

[kybred]

I saw several reports that folks who installed leopard using the 'Upgrade' method had some problems. Those that did the Archive and Install method seemed to fare better. Skimmed through the article but didn't see anything about which he did.

Seems like he's more interested in complaining than figuring out what the problem is.

In fairness, Apple should probably encourage users to do the Archive/Install method for .0 releases, maybe even go so far as to disable the Upgrade option for those.

Re:Upgrade or Archive & Install?

[ewwhite]

I think Apple is encouraging the archive and install method now. I can't think of any situation where a straight upgrade makes more sense.

Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

I am with Linus on this one. For the life of me I can't understand what this sucking up to RMS is about. Linus himself does not think GPLv3 is a good thing. So why do people keep adopting it.
Without Linus FOSS is tossed. Not following Linus is dangerous for the survival of FOSS.

Hardware issue, probably

[tentimestwenty]

OS X rarely has kernel panics and 99% of the time they are related to:

1.) failing hardware/RAM
2.) bizarre, hack or beta software
The only kernel panic I've had since the original version of OS X was from an old iMac with a failing logic board. I'm still running old versions of Office and many other programs that I never bothered to upgrade because to my surprise they keep working perfectly fine even under Leopard. This guy is totally out to lunch.

Re:Hardware issue, probably

[MightyYar]

Yeah, I've been using OSX since the beta days, and all of my crashes were either hardware related or I was using an old kernel extension with a problem. Specifically, my old B&W G3 Mac had flaky firewire hardware, as does my much newer dual G5... figures that Apple would ship flaky firewire. In both cases, using a third-party card solved my problems. On my iBook, I had no problems for two years, and then all of the sudden I started getting crashes unless I unloaded the airport kext. Sure enough, a few days later one of the USB ports stopped working... bad logic board.

Windows is the same these days, though. Very solid if the hardware is good. I had a cheap and crappy Thunderbird box that crashed constantly. I sprung for decent hardware and I haven't really had any problems since - though Windows does seem pretty touchy when it comes to video drivers. Man alive, tracking down the crashes is tough with those things. Of course, my comparison may not be valid since I typically shut down the Windows box every night, but not the Macs.

Anybody downgarding to 10.4?

[ultraslide]

First ... I have the good sense not to upgrade my OS until i KNOW all my apps are well supported. I accept the risks if they aren't. I'm a big boy and I've seen my fair share of BSODs, Beachballs and Kernal Panics.

One detail obviously forgotten in the Vista / Leopard comparison:
How many Leopard users are being downgraded back to Tiger?
Answer:None

In my shop, where we sell new Macs and PCs, the ability to downgrade to XP is a requirement for a good deal of the hardware we order because it is so common for customers to DEMAND a downgrade to XP, for various reasons. They will pay for the OS twice - in addition to the fees we charge for installing XP on a new Vista based PC. I think that money speaks volumes about Vista.

BTW ... I upgraded my 12" PB G4 to Leopard (clean install) and have had only one problem. Sometimes apps are slow to quit. other than that, smooth sailing.

Quicktime 7.3

[localman]

I don't know about Tiger (haven't upgraded yet) but the recent Quicktime 7.3 update is a pile of crap.

I'm not a power user, and I really just use Quicktime for porn, but it definitely took a major step backwards in this release: the select/copy/paste functionality has been removed from most movie types. Also the A/V controls (brightness, contrast) no longer work on many formats. These were things that _worked_ in 7.2 and have been _disabled_ in 7.3. I don't know what they're trying to do, but it seems like they're trying to make Quicktime completely useless. Those little features were the only reason I used Quicktime at all (instead of VLC, for example).

Poking around online to try and find a downgrade path, I found that a lot of Final Cut users were totally screwed by this update as well. And the downgrade path is to reinstall the OS from scratch and selectively update around Quicktime 7.3.

Meh... Apple is doing a lot of things right. And they're doing a lot of things wrong. I'd like to see them understand which is which, and hold on to the right things and work on improving the wrong things. Is that really too much to ask?

Bugs and such I understand, but who the hell thinks it's a good idea to disable existing functionality?

Cheers.

Re:Quicktime 7.3

[sam.thorogood]

They did this with the latest iMovie, too - stripped out a huge amount of features in favour of something in theory simpler, but it really would have been nice if the old functionality was still hidden somewhere in there. It's kind of annoying.

Re:Quicktime 7.3

[ManxStef]

Might be worth trying the latest version of Perian to improve other format support?
http://perian.org/

You'll also have to update to the latest version of Flip4Mac if you want to play Windows Media (WMV) files:
http://www.flip4mac.com/wmv_download.htm

Re:Quicktime 7.3

[PolarBearFire]

QT has been and always been crap since time immemorial. I don't get how its version 7.3 it feels like the same ol' garbage since version 1.0. I would even prefer any version of Windows Media Player over QT. Technology moves very fast, what is today almost always radically changes tomorrow. QT sucking gives me warm feeling in my belly, very conforting in a wierd way.

Re:Quicktime 7.3

[Anonymous Coward]

Bugs and such I understand, but who the hell thinks it's a good idea to disable existing functionality?

Gnome.

I wish I was kidding. Maybe we should start a petition or something? ;-)

Funny, I'm using Vista now...

[hey!]

and it's always crass.

Comments and articles are all ridiculous.

[mattgreen]

It is logically inconsistent to argue that "anecdotes are worthless," only to immediately say, "my experiences with X have been good overall and I oversee N nodes." Wait, I thought you just said anecdotes didn't mean anything? If they do mean something, then your first statement is false. If they don't, then your second statement doesn't mean anything. In effect, you are refuting yourself, which doesn't convince anyone.

Anyway, article strikes me as flamebait, even if he makes some decent points. Both OSes were released too early and didn't heed the cries of their beta testers. Both of them have gimmicky new features and insist on form over function. I just wish I could use the Vista internal enhancements such as I/O improvements (sans ridiculous NIC conflicts) in XP. Explorer's apperance is horrid in Vista, especially when you're not using Aero. And I can't wait for the gaudy-cool-colored-gradients-on-every-UI-element trend to be over. Unfortunately, nearly every single software vendor out there is now going to copy that for the next 8 years simply because Microsoft did it.

Damn, I sound like such a curmudgeon.

Re:Comments and articles are all ridiculous.

[Pfhorrest]

I think the point of such comment that "anecdotes are worthless, my experience was just the opposite of yours..." is like if one person were to say "look at these two data points, there's an obvious pattern" and someone else responded "two data points are not enough to plot a curve from; and look, this data point is completely off of the curve you plotted..."

X11

[ottawaguy]

X11 is in terrible shape in Leopard. You can't launch it from the dock. You can't switch to it from other applications and expect the windows to come to the foreground (you have to click the X11 icon a couple of times). Multi-mouse button emulation is busted. It doesn't work with Expose. The list goes on: see http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=80171

I realize that lots of these bugs are fixed if you overwrite Apple's binaries with the community-compiled X11.app; but I'm rather frustrated because it was working just fine in Tiger and became completely broken in Leopard. I'm glad I upgraded at home (where I use X11 occasionally) and not at work (where I use X11 all the time).

Re:is this news?

[tgatliff]

I love macs, but I am having a really hard time dissagreeing with what he said. Actually, I find it quite interesting because I can understand his frustration. If my MacBookPro gave me the grey screen 6 times, or even 1 for that matter, I would be royally pissed as well...

I would also agree with him that Leopard was not what I had hoped it would be as far as new features. Spaces and stacks are nice, but most of the other new "features" really do not do anything for me. Cover flow, transparent menus, and even Time Machine come to mind here... I am sure someone out there wants these kinds of features, but they sure arent people like me...

Wait and see

[fermion]

I have had 10.5 running on one machine since it came out, and on my main machine for a week. There are problems. The computers sometimes won't wake up from sleep, X!! is toast on both machines, I can't get scplugin to work, because I can't get X!! up, OO.org does not work(fortunately most stuff in Tex, and TexShop is slow, but works, under 10.5), among a number of annoyances.

However, 10.5 is a month old. Vists was released to the commercial market over a year ago. My production window machines, many which were installed in July, were bought with MS Windows XP, not vista. The machine I aquired this summer came with Windows XP. No one in my sector is even thinking of buying any machine with Vista, even a year after of release.

I think the problem is that the pent up demand caused a rapid adoption cycle for 10.5. Users, like me, abandoned their better sense and moved to it too quickly, amplifying the normal problem. !0.4 was really getting dated, and the machines getting bogged down. Even the best machine can use a good reformat every couple years. At the end of the day, if 10.5 sucks this badly in a year, or is not about to be replaced with 10.6, then the comparison with MS Vista will be apt. Otherwise, this is the normal product cycle. Wait six months to a year to use a new product in production machines, and be happy that one has a new toy to play with for machines that can be risked with new software.

Leopard since release day. No crashes.

[jpellino]

iBook G4 & iMac G5.
Painless.
No kernel panics.
Reboots only from installs who demanded it.
I miss classic, but I'll get over it.

Re:Leopard since release day. No crashes.

[CrazyTalk]

you miss classic? seriously? I can't count how many "Sad Macs" I would see back in the day. OSX in any flavor is a HUGE improvement.

Re:Leopard since release day. No crashes.

[jpellino]

Only for a few apps that never made the jump, and classic was somehow far more stable than standalone 9 ever was. I know it shouldn't have been but it seemed that way. Maybe it was the 9.2.2 versus whatever earlier i was running standalone.

Software should be released when it's done

[popo]

Not according to timetables.

Ok.. so it's not that simple. But we can dream.

I don't think this guy has used Leopard or Vista

[CmdrChillupa]

I've had Vista Premium 32bit since it was released. I use Vista Business 64bit all day, every day at work. I've had Leopard since the third ADC beta release and am currently running 10.5.1.

Every time I restart Vista at least 2 of the Media Center services crash on startup. After restarting them 2-3 times each they tend to stay running until the next time I restart Vista.

After years of trying Microsoft has successfully destroyed Windows Explorer. It doesn't update directory contents regularly. It doesn't have a "up one directory" button. Seriously? It's a file manager not a web browser. Let me have a up one dir button, please. Vista networking is slow, unreliable and the smallest configuration task is hidden behind 20 levels of pretty glass bars.

Leopard on the other hand is faster and more stable than Tiger ever was. The networking picks up windows, linux and afp file shares more reliably and faster than Tiger. Spotlight is faster and seems much more responsive. The user interface does have useless new features. New features that you're free to ignore. Stacks is a waste of time. Time Machine doesn't have a tremendous amount of value to me. The dock and menu bar are translucent now. Obviously, these new features draw value away from OS X.

What draws value away from Vista is the fact that tons of software and hardware still doesn't work with Vista a year after it's release.

I'll take useless new features and system stability over bad hardware/software support and the dumbing down of user interface components.

panic.log

[sockonafish]

This guy needs to post his kernel panic log. I'm curious to see what's causing so many panic events.

Re:panic.log

[Rosyna]

Indeed. They're so quick to complain about a problem and usually unwilling to do anything to try to solve their problem.

someone...

[qzulla]

... has a case of the Mooooondays.

qz

Not exactly apples & oranges

[evil_aar0n]

Part of Vista's failure is the hardware requirements for what amounts to window dressing. There were no additional hardware requirements for OS 10.5. True, some older Macs were left behind, but it's not quite the same thing. The majority of Mac owners who upgraded did not have to run out and buy new hardware to enjoy the full benefits of 10.5.

Also, this seems to be a case of YMMV. I upgraded to 10.5.1, after using 10.5.0 from day 0, and, aside from X server - functional, but flaky - it works just fine. This is my primary machine, and there's nothing I can't run now that I couldn't run before. I can't even recall an unplanned reboot. Is it perfect? Nah - nothing is. But I've no complaints.

Anecdotes

[wyldeone]

Since that's just anecdotal evidence, here's some more. I upgraded my C2D MacBook in place to Leopard about two hours before the official release date in my time zone (thanks, FedEx). I have had a total of two kernel panics since then relating to my wireless driver, but the problem seems to have been fixed since 10.5.1. Also, Time Machine refused to work with my drive for some reason until 10.5.1. But besides those issues, it's been completely smooth. And another difference between Vista and Leopard: Leopard is actually faster on my hardware than Tiger was.

Re:Anecdotes

[Rufty]

And some more anecdotal evidence... Running 10.5 on a MacBook since ~3 days after release. 2 kernel panics. Both times while running TimeMachine over wireless to an AFP share on a Thecus 2100. Wireless? FS layer?? Me enabling unsupported devices in TimeMachine??? Overall, wouldn't go back, but still feels a bit "NT4sp0"

XP FTW

[Paul_Hindt]

Well, if the rumors about greatly increased performance from Service Pack 3 are true, then I see no reason to switch to Vista. Not only is the current Vista performance abysmal on even newer consumer machines, the performance from the much touted DX10 is nothing to write home about either. I am still getting along just fine with XP, especially on older hardware, and I see no pressing need to switch to Vista.

10.5 is fine here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using 10.5.1 on a g4 laptop, g4 towers, G5s and a new imac 24 inch all for high end print design/prepress as well as 3d, video, audio, ilife, gaming, browsing, accounting, and other miscellaneous tasks.

Everything is working as advertised, nothing is broken. Nothing.

A small number of people who upgraded incorrectly and didn't back up had some minor glitches from the initial release? Yeah well thats to be expected of any release.

But to compare Leopard's overall success with vista's absolute failure is completely ridiculous.

Really... Vista doesn't crash?

[Sparky McGruff]

I had at least a blue-screen every other day for the first two weeks I ran Vista. After a couple of "windows updates" it was down to once a week. Now I'm down to once every two weeks or so. This is on a pre-installed vista home premium that came with a dual-core laptop. Not a hacked together piece of garbage. Vista is crashing less, but now I find that random services just stop working, like the trackpad, or the network. Just the little stuff.

Vista's been a pain, but it's never crashed on me

[joshv]

As bad as Vista's been, it's never crashed on me. 6 times in a month? Dude, get a Dell.

PC Mag like Fox News and ClearChannel

[ToasterTester]

First I have been running Leopard on two Mac's since it came and only an install problem on one, but no other problems since.

I've noticed ever since Leopard came out the PC Mag et al authors have been on a Leopard FUD campaign. So you like when listening to Fox or Clearchannel you have to put your BS filter on 10. You could speculate a lot on who's pulling their strings, but basically Vista stumbled coming out of the gate and Apple gadgets and computers are drawing a lot of attention. People are going to use what they want or need to use, but I think there are a lot of people on the fence right now that could hop over to the Apple side and that makes the PC marketplace nervous. Because with Apple it is a hardware sale as well as a OS and app's.

6 Crashes, that's all? So far my Mac is at 12!

[itsybitsy]

Yup. 12 so far. Mostly Parallels but not always. It sucks.

The Mach Kernel is supposed to prevent this but I suppose they've mutilated the microkernel concept so much that it's useless at preventing Apple's MacOSX 10.5 Leopard from biting the big one over and over and over again.

Get it fixed Apple. Get it fixed.

No application should ever crash an operating system. That's the theory at least. Why is it that Apple and Microsoft can't get it together?

This is a good review!

[SendBot]

I'm planning on running leopard at some point in the future, having used tiger extensively, but am currently using xp. So this article was interesting to me, but this part about time machine is hilarious:

"Third, Vista's backup works over a network. In its ads Apple blithely says that Time Machine can, too, but when you read the fine print--or try it in real life--you discover that Time Machine works with USB- or FireWire-connected drives only. Really? In 2007? When I saw that, I actually looked around to see if Ashton Kutcher was going to pop out from behind my lab bench and tell me I'd been punked."

Re: Ditto Mostly

[Anonymous Coward]

I did an upgrade install. The system died on me after three days. Then did a clean install. Had no panics at all on Leopard. Have had some application crashes same apps used to crash on Tiger too.

Only have a couple of issues... One non cosmetic = Time Machine is a bit fragile. that will probably be fixed in a few updates.
Two cosmetic issues: one, no right click on a folder in the dock to get a menu of the folder contents. Two, translucent menu bar. Fixed with a pref change found on macosxhints. Overall, I really like leopard.

Not a Dry Seat in the House

[not_hylas( )]

From TFA:

"Let's see, Tiger crashed--oh yeah, NEVER."

"And the pièce de résistance: rounded corners on menu bars! Awesome. I have so been waiting for those!"

"Yeah, I know the OS went to full-on 64-bits, but that's no reason to mess with the networking stack. Especially since Tiger's networking just plain worked. Plug into an Apple network--you're good to go. Plug into a Windows network--you're good to go. Plug into any IP-based mixed-client network--you're good to go. Bring up a new Windows share in a mixed network, and Tiger usually sees it before the Windows client does. Did someone actually sit down and say, we've just got to improve on that?"

Oliver Rist nails it. Laughed my ass off.
Yeah, we're due for a major fuck up, let's see how they pull this one out.

Great article.

(yes, I bought the new OS)

Time Machine is not backup

[pikine]

I see time machine more as a version control system than a backup. Backup provides redundancy, but time machine doesn't do that. If your file system becomes corrupted, time machine will just lose everything. The reason why time machine only works on local disk is because, in order to avoid hard linking every single files, it uses directory hard link to make snapshot of unchanged directories, an operation that a network file system highly unlikely supports.

Re:Time Machine is not backup

[Anonymous Coward]

If your file system becomes corrupted, time machine will just lose everything.

Uh.. no, it won't. Where are you pulling that from?

Re:Time Machine is not backup

[Space cowboy]

Um, given that if your boot drive goes on fire, you can still recover from a Time-Machine backup (on a different HD, obviously), I'd say you were wrong on that one. Sure sounds like a backup to me.

Simon.

Re:Time Machine is not backup

[pikine]

I swear Apple used a snapshot-capable version of HFS+ to implement time machine in the manner I described, but they went back in time to change it. I can prove this.

No issues so far

[End Us3r]

Upgraded 3 Macs (2 Intel and 1 PPC). No issues so far. All my NAS/Windows shares are working perfectly. I bought a 1GB external drive for Time Machine (love TM!). I will use TM to recover lost files quickly. To recover from a boot drive failure I am using Carbon Copy Cloner to clone my boot drive to an external on a regular basis.

A couple issues, all video related.

[OS24Ever]

I have a Mac Pro 2.66Ghz with the AT 1900XL and 4GB of memory with the ADC 23"

There appears to be some flaw(s) in the ATI device driver for leopard that is causing me two issues

1) Randomly there is garbage lines of rainbow crap on the screen. it sticks to where it is, like if i'm on a web page and scrol the page up and down to 'redraw' it it doesn't redraw it, and the crap stays there.

2) Anything that plays on the graphics card will blow up, it's just a matter of time. It can be 20 min, or 20 hours, but if you're doing anything fun (Armagedtron, EVE Online, anything video game like) the machine panics, sometimes it knows it panics, sometime it dies. Symptoms can be 'locked up' in place, the screen goes black. The lock up is of varying intensity. I normally have music playing and sometimes the song keeps playing until it finishes, others it gets stuck and you have the last 1s or so in a repeat loop until you turn the system off.

Every time after I physically turn the machine off, I have to turn it on, turn it off again, and then turn it on again before it'll boot.

Other than that weird thing, no issues. And Photoshop or Lightroom do not crash the system, just the games.

Re:A couple issues, all video related.

[Carbon016]

Sounds like a simple overheating problem to me.

Re:A couple issues, all video related.

[OS24Ever]

Well, I'd believe that if it was doing it the hour before when I was running Tiger but the crap and stuff only happened post leopard install, and it was a clean install.

Re:A couple issues, all video related.

[xrayspx]

I have exactly the same config minus the expensive as hell monitor. Instead I have two Samsung 204b's (not that it matters). I don't have the problems you describe at all, though in window mode VLC messes up the in-window movie controls unless the window is sized full-screen (as opposed to full-screening the movie). I have plenty of other problems, Safari crashing or "beachballing" indefinitely when I switch to it or close a tab being one of the major ones.

There are also issues which seem specific to multi-head, such as much of the abysmal state of X11.app. In addition to crashing constantly, which isn't really new, it is non-multihead capable. Another example (though I'm sure it's not a bug since I think I'm one of about 6 people worldwide who are pissed about it) is that Spaces can't be configured for multiple, independent desktops. It flips both monitors, which annoys me greatly, coming from Linux instead of Windows as I do.

Overall, I'd say that Leopard is "slightly less stable" than Tiger, though not by much. The Safari thing was happening before, and I think might be a function of SIMBL. I just read this earlier this evening and haven't tested it thoroughly yet. I use SafariStand only because when you open many tabs in Safari, and it runs out of room in the tab bar, you cannot close tabs that aren't shown in that bar without going to the file menu or reaching for the keyboard.

MOD PARENT UP

[meehawl]

I'm not a power user, and I really just use Quicktime for porn /. needs more candour like this.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 too much information?

Eh..

[IwarkChocobos]

I've been using Leopard for a long time now and had NO crashes, only program glitches. Also, this is total BS: "Apple isn't even honest enough to admit that Leopard is crashing: The OS just grays out my desktop and pops up a dialog box telling me I've got to reboot." That's been in mac os since...10.0 is I'm not mistaken. Don't make it like it's new or anything.

Worthless chatter

[rueger]

One thing I'll say for Windows users - if you say you have a problem, someone will always pop up and say "Yeah, me too, and this is how to fix it."

Linux geeks still tend too much to attack the newcomer, or shout "Read the friggin' man pages!" Still as a community they are maturing and learning to help people rather than flame them.

Make a complaint about an Apple product though and you run headlong into a wall of denial a mile high, with everyone either claiming that your problem does not exist, that you're an idiot when you point out some of the more bizarre UI choices Apple makes, or most frighteningly, arguing that any deficiency, no matter how severe, is somehow actually a wonderful feature.

I think that Apple users are doing themselves a disservice by not holding Apple to a higher standard. By pretending that hardware or software issues don't exist, and by attempting to shut down those who raise legitimate complaints, they allow Apple far too much latitude to do the same.

This will of course be modded as troll or flamebait by the first fanboy who reads it.

Re:Worthless chatter

[zorkerz]

Ive had a very different experience with problems in windows vs. linux (mostly ubuntu in my case). Windows does not have good error messages and forums are spread out all over with tons of people who don't know diddle about a computer. The ubuntuforums is frankly the most friendly encouraging forum I have come across on the internet. Its not a place where you need to be worried about being attacked.

Re:Worthless chatter

[freedom_india]

Very true. The behavior of the Apple community is much the fiercely conservative republican leadership: Deny, personal attacks, and finally grudging agreement under protest.

Although Apple's forums are extremely helpful, they can be picky at times: In my case all the keys in my iBook 14" keyboard were meticulously pulled out by my 2 year old son when i had kept the lid open by mistake.

When i posted it to apple forums and requested they make keyboards which are child proof, they were non-believing and some of them outright said i ought to be booked for child abuse!!!

Fortunately the admin stepped in and recommended me BrilliantStore to buy an alternate keyboard.

Re:Worthless chatter

[martinX]

Make a complaint about an Apple product though and you run headlong into a wall of denial a mile high,

WE DO NOT

You idiot.

--------------- That should earn me loyalty points on macfanboi.com :-)

Re:Worthless chatter

[sl3xd]

You know, it's funny - You shine a spotlight on "bizarre" UI issues that Apple made, yet quietly sweep Vista's under the rug. And Linux geeks have been, in my experience, the most helpful of all computer users. The only people who shout RTFM are either tweens or people with the maturity of one.

Given Mac's heritage in graphic design (ie. the people who stuck with apple from '95-2000), it's not surprising to hear designer after designer lamenting decisions they don't agree with.

The new dock appearance has had no end of critics; fortunately it can be configured and customized fairly easily. The translucent menu bar is similar. In both cases, Apple should have provided the tools, instead of forcing people to take matters into their own hands.

The dock in general has had no end of critics; there is a legion of users who pine for the days of the "classic" interface; not because it's bad, but because it's not what they had in 1984. In some ways, I see the design complaints like an old man sitting on his porch, lamenting the styling of modern cars.

Though I'd like to see an example of a 'real' deficiency that has been spun as a wonderful feature. It's easy to say that apple is ignoring major problems, but I have yet to see any examples. Any of the 'design' issues like icon appearance, dock appearance, or menu bar appearance are customizable, should you not like the default. But design is, to me, a non-issue, as it's very subjective, and there's no pleasing everybody.

And as for Apple users not holding Apple to a higher standard - surely you jest. Graphic designers have been complaining long and loud ever since OS X was released about things they didn't like. (Probably before that, but I didn't consider "Classic" macintosh at all viable). Unix geeks have also held apple to a very high standard - to the point that it's now one of the very few operating systems that's been certified as Unix. In fact, the terminal application received a major amount of attention in Leopard, with many improvements.

That being said, I also have & run Vista. Frankly, it seems (to me) to be little different from XP from a user's standpoint. Again, some graphic design issues, some I like, some I don't. (I think it's funny to hear people lament about the Leopard Folder icons. Vista's were an even bigger step backwards...) But overall, Vista was just plain underwhelming to me. Vista had more compatibility issues at release than Leopard did, though a good part of that was lousy video drivers from ATI & Nvidia. I also don't appreciate Vista's umpteen levels of DRM and having to click "allow or deny" all kinds of connections to the internet. XP couldn't play many games as a non-administrator (I haven't checked if Vista has the same problem).

In general, OS X, like most Unix & unix-like OSes, just works with a non-administrative user. XP was a joke, and I haven't seen anything to indicate an improvement in Vista.

Re:Worthless chatter

[Anonymous Coward]

'Linux geeks still tend too much to attack the newcomer, or shout "Read the friggin' man pages!".'

Obviously, you've never used {Open,Free}BSD.

Upon entering the linux community after years of using freebsd for my desktop, I actually found the responses to be pretty damn welcoming, actually.

Sure, most of my queries in forums were \ fairly pointed and informed, but even my random google searches ("howto install nvidia ubuntu") found a ton of helpful, concise answers. The Linux community "hostility" is a complete and utter myth as far as I'm concerned. I suppose it's all a matter of what you're used to.

Answers to a very particular (but possibly, generally common) question:

Windows forum: I have the same problem. If anyone figures this out, let me know. ....*maybe* a vague answer that may or may not work.
Linux forum: Here's the answer. You're a newb. Here are a few links. Here's something you should check before asking next time. You're a newb btw.
Mac forum: Works for me dude. Never had a problem. The mac is the best evar. Transparency rulz!
BSD forum: what are you, a f@&%ing idiot? (and yes, you might get an answer or a lead, if you're lucky)**

** I may be unfair here. It's been years since I asked a question re BSD.

Re:Worthless chatter

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but you sound like a complete "unix rules all" idiot.
Just thought I'd let you know.

Re:Worthless chatter

[grrrgrrr]

Your opinion is very biased it mostly shows you do not read apple or linux forums, publications or blogs but only the windows mainstream. The impression you will get of those is manipulative like for example this article. This Article is complete b.s. people who know a bit about apple can see that and get a bit angry and that is just what the article is designed to do but to the ignorant masses that gives the impression that they are fanatics. Microsoft is famous for all kind of negative campaigns and trying to influence the press so maybe it will be better for your opinion forming to realize that and get a more balanced opinion.

Re:Worthless chatter

[Scruffy Dan]

I've found that putting cryptic MS error messages into google usually leads me to information on how to fix the problem, though there is no doubt that a certain knowledge of how thing work (or should work) is necessary to differentiate between the good info and the crap.

Re:Worthless chatter

[Stevecrox]

Nice in depth review of Vista there, some corrections if you don't mind. The Cancel or Allow thing only appears when a program requires admin rights for me the only time I see this is when I'm installing a game or driver. Fraps does also require it but it does have good reason to want admin rights. I agree with the model I don't want ever application on my PC to need admin rights. Vista DRM layers are one of the great myths, they did contribute to the driver isue that Nvidia/ATi had but unless your planning on running DRM media (some of us never will) they don't effect your pc in anyway.

I like the UI differences Vista has made the only bad choice as I see it is placing the network sharing centre behind the network connections screen placing Device manager straight into the control panel was a brilliant idea and the re arrangement of the user folders helps seperate things out.

Vista is working on millions if not billions of computer configurations its biggest problems have been drivers and as far as I can tell those driver issues are slowly being phased out. Mac's are supposed to "just work" and yet there is a strong vocal group claiming the latest release is causing them major issues. Microsoft may have a good excuse for why my scanner made by a small company six years ago doesn't work on Vista x64 (actually someone pointed me at anouther driver and it now does) or the fact that Riven won't install (10 year old game.) Whats apple's excuse? They control all the hardware so there are only dozens of configurations and talking with the big companies who produce software for your platform can't be that hard. My own expearence is a little different if you have an issue with windows there will be someone else who's had it and hopefully a work around/fix. If there isn't a workaround you'll find people squatting on a companies forum moaning until there is. Linux seems to me to have split into two camps the first is highly friendly (Ubunutu camp) and they are helpfull. The second is the old school linux camp, this is made up of people who believe the command line is the only interface a person should use and will flame you if you ask why you have to go through it rather than a wizard (my favorite being make one yourself.) Its the sole reason I'll only try Ubunutu because I know I could probably get help if I needed it. Don't get me wrong many projects are getting better but they seem to be the projects tied to (or come preloaded with) Ubunutu

Re:Worthless chatter

[thesandtiger]

Make a complaint about an Apple product though and you run headlong into a wall of denial a mile high

No you don't.

Re:Worthless chatter

[iphayd]

The problem is that without evidence, Mac users will discount the problem as your fault (which in our experience it generally is).

Now, if he were to have provided Panic logs (which are written and sent to Apple after every crash, with your approval of course), we would be quick to tell him what his general problem. Without the logs, we could go ahead and try the "well if 'a' doesn't work, then try 'b' routine", but I have better things to do with my day*.

Now, with that said - Kernel Panics _generally_ say something about hardware. He should run DiskWarrior, try pulling out the 3rd party ram he installed with Leopard, and stop trying to be John Dvorak.

* - (I'm awake in the middle of the night posting to /. due to my daughter waking me up and not being able to sleep.)

Re:Worthless chatter

[sl3xd]

The Cancel or Allow thing only appears when a program requires admin rights for me the only time I see this is when I'm installing a game or driver.
Or if you decide to organize the start menu. (Is it still called the Start menu now that it doesn't say 'start?')

One thing that's neat about OS X is you can install many programs as a normal user (granted, everything stays within your home directory, but it's possible, and won't affect the system as a whole.)

My beefs with the Vista UI are
1.) The folder icons. The mini-icons look more like the WinXP "zipfile" icon, which caused no end of grief for me. Fully-customizable, however, so it's just an inconvenience.
2.) I really dislike the 'ribbon' UI concept; but as I stressed in my earlier post, this is a matter of personal preference.
3.) While not really a problem, per se, it was maddening finding where Vista put a number of functions that were previously easy to find in the menu. This problem obviously 'went away' as I learned where they are in Vista.

As far as stability problems go - Apple does have an advantage in that it has a limited hardware set. However, Linux runs on even more hardware than Windows, and is rock solid. (I'll grant you that the average Linux user is more savvy than the average windows user - and this probably accounts for much.) But I've got 3 macs, one is PPC, the other two are Intel. All run Leopard, and none have crashed. That being said, I run Vista (via boot camp), and have only crashed vista once or twice. But since I've had Vista several months longer than Leopard, you've gotta expect a higher number of crashes, right?

And with the "old school Linux camp" - leave the 60 year olds alone. Old dog & new tricks & all. But they do have a valid point - it is useful to be able to use the command line. But that's about as far as I'll go. (And I'm one of those freaks who was looking at Leopard's new feature set and didn't really thing "woo hoo!" until I read about the upgraded terminal.)

As far as why it's necessary to edit files manually instead of a wizard - mainly because text files are the standard method of holding configuration data in Unix-like OSes. (OS X tends to use .plists, which are also formatted text files). But why not wizards? Usually because a great many linux software developers aren't that motivated to make configuration easy. It's not a very fun job, and given the amount of Linux software written by volunteers, it's a case of the developers ignoring that 'boring' step. Things are slowly changing, but it's still Linux's major problem.

Re:Worthless chatter

[toddestan]

I find that Windows' error messages don't really mean anything (to me atleast), but you can type them into Google and can generally find specific information about the error I'm having and how to fix it.

Apple's error messages are for the most part, completely worthless.

Re:Worthless chatter

[NateTech]

Windows users always have the answers because no one else but the user-base does. And there's a lot of people with the same bugs.

Not only Linux geeks "attack" people and expect them to RTFM. People that show up in just about any experienced group of computer users asking simple questions and showing no sign of ever looking at the documentation (or in this case, the crash logs at least), deserve to get the crap flamed out of them. In person, preferably -- so they'll lose their "techie review" job at Ziff-Davis and get the hell out of this industry and leave it to professionals.

Some fanatics of Apple might behave like your description, but there's plenty of people out here who'd help the twit if his article weren't just flamebait, and he'd made even the slightest effort to read the logfiles. Most of us are just shaking our heads and hoping he finds a job somewhere where his talents of complaining without any understanding of the topic or any effort expended, while getting paid to do so, can be put to good use. Perhaps he'd make a good Congressman.

My comments will be modded Troll too, but there's no reason to help people who haven't made any effort to help themselves -- logs are basic OS technology that have been around for almost 30 years now. This idiot can't find them. He doesn't belong anywhere near a job reviewing Operating Systems. He's an idiot, and likely not willing to try to change that.

"That's six cold reboots for Oliver"

[Anonymous Coward]

The mark of self-important douche-baggery; speaking about ones self in the third person.

Complete opposite for me

[jht]

I put Leopard on my Santa Rosa MacBook Pro on day 1. Almost no real issues, zero crashes, and overall stability seems much better than it did under Tiger. Here's what I noticed as issues:

I had messed up my Keychain config many versions and computers ago, which was faithfully migrated from Mac to Mac. Leopard broke it (basically, my keychain was named for my user shortname, not "login"). I renamed the keychain, logged out and back in, and all was well.

VPN configs didn't migrate the authentication info properly because Internet Config is no longer the tool that manages the connection. Not a problem for most, but I have 23 different clients I use VPNs to connect to. Easily fixed.

I didn't use any InputManagers other than Saft/PithHelmet, so that was no biggie. And that combo works now.

When the Mac first wakes up and is scanning for a network connection, the mouse is kind of jerky. It lasts a few seconds.

All in all, I've seen remarkably few bugs for a .0 release from Apple. I've been very encouraged. Granted, there are some design issues in my opinion (I don't like the new Dock, Stacks are a clever but broken idea, etc.), but those aren't bugs so much as features I don't like too much. But I think Leopard is mainly Good Stuff.

Leopard is quite like Vista (my own experiences)

[MyDixieWrecked]

I haven't had any crashes in Leopard... I've been running it on my Macbook Pro since the day it came out.

I too have compared OSX to Vista on several occasions. For the first time that I've noticed, Apple has added visual effects without regard to usability and with the latest release of their OS, it feels like they just added visual effects for the sake of adding visual effects. It seems almost like apple is trying to wow people visually and although they did improve a lot of things beyond animations, reflections and tabs, the bugginess of the new OS overshadows the whole thing and even their marketing concentrates on the new effects more than anything else.

I've compared Leopard to Vista several times since I've installed it and apple has detracted from usability with many features. Also, they seem to have screwed the more advanced users in several areas. Following are some of my main gripes that I can think of immediately:

• They left out the split-window feature in Terminal.app; a feature that although I rarely use, I miss terribly.
• X11 performance feels much slower...
• X11 window styling does not match the rest of the OS
• Spaces feels half-implemented and is very buggy.
  • Frequently my workspace switches for no reason, sometimes several times in a row
  • creating new windows in a workspace that is not the native workspace for that app causes it to create the window in that workspace instead of the current one
  • I have Terminal.app set to be on a specific workspace, but if I have a terminal window in another one and I drag out a tab from that window, the space switches back to the original
• the softer shadows are harder on the eyes
• the transparent menubar sometimes makes things hard to see
• mousepointer performance is flakey; sometimes my arrow gets jerkey and freezes for no reason
• the new dock is horrifically hard on the eyes... from the reflections to the little blue dots for running apps

There's more that I've been complaining about, but I'm drawing a blank right now. When I first installed it, I was having issues with Mail.app when I would delete IMAP messages and my Aventail VPN client didn't work, but I've since fixed both of those.

I just ordered a new MacPro for my desktop and I'm a little upset that it's going to come with the new OS. I'd rather hold off on having that machine be so up to date, but what can I do? I guess I'll just have to wait until 10.5.2 or higher. blah.

My Leopard upgrade experience

[Narbo]

I recently purchased a Macbook pro after a 10+ year hiatus from using Macs. My last Mac was a PowerMac 6100 way back when the PPC601 was brand new (and very cool) CPU tech. I switched over from XP simply because I dont play as many PC games anymore preferring my consoles and bigass TV for most things. I really liked the concept of OSX, nice *NIX underpinnings with high quality GUI layered on top and things like bootcamp pretty much made it a no brainer.

My Leopard experience has been ok so far. Honestly I think its acceptable quality for a .0 (now .1) release of a major OS increment. Yes there are bugs. Yes some of them are pretty annoying such as the airport driver bug which kernel panics after some time running any torrent client. All of them have fairly easy workarounds. (e.g: use Ethernet) None of them can be really labelled as critical design flaws which is something that can not be said of the Vista.

As usual with anything you are vastly more likely to hear people with complaints saying things rather then the majority that has no issues.

Truth be told certainly its a step backwards in stability from 10.4.10 however the under the hood and features is a big step forward. It just needs a bit of polish which will probably come in the next few months.

After having recently used a Mac...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

As much as i like the Mac, I'm actually happy to be back on my pc with Vista 64 Ultimate.

Vista is a step in the right direction. It needs to improve in every aspect, from performance to interface... but it is an improvement.

Vista 64-bit Ultimate is the OS has been a joy to use for the most part. The memory management has done some wierd things but Vista has been extremely stable for me.

The DRM sucks. We need to end that. It is absolutely wrong to force HDCP on a user, when the Geforce 8800 GTX cant do HDCP over dual link DVI. It is just fucking evil to enforce DRM that breaks previous standard hardware. My experience with the Geforce 8800 GTX is ridiculous. I cant watch a bluray or hddvd on my brand new pc because Nvidia failed to support HDCP on dual link dvi on a next generation card.

I think its more the hardware is the issue.

[Onetrack]

Since I am running OSX 10.5.1 on my common intel hardware.. just a standard gigabyte board and its solid like a rock. its probably quality control over in shenzen thats causing the issues.

Ooo Ooo Me Me Me

[Gr8Apes]

Isn't it more accurate to compare the time line of Windows XP to Mac OS X? Both were released around the same time, both are their respective publishers most popular desktop OS, both are currently supported, etc. Yet one has received free updates since release, where as the other has had four $129 software updates since release. Since both companies stopped supporting the older versions of their OS, which would you go with? The OS with free updates, or the OS that has cost you over $500 to stay updated? I love this one: here's the easy answer: if .NET hadn't been a complete disaster as an OS framework, you'd probably be on your third $400 MS upgrade (ok, maybe third $200 upgrade if you're cheap). It wasn't for lack of trying, it was from lack of capability.

I believe Apple is still supporting Panther as they released a security update in July 2007.

Apple generally has an update about every 2 or 3 months. MS does 1 update about every 2 years on average. (we are talking the likes of service packs here, right, not hotfixes which aren't recommeded to be installed unless you're experiencing the problem?) Oh, and you can forget about Windows Update - I don't need MS rewriting my hard drive whenever they feel like it and rebooting my machine while I'm busy.

So I think I'll go with the system that's stable and works vs the one that "needs" daily patches and reboots (when all it really needs to be is configured properly by turning off a slew of "services" and installing some decent software)

Re:Ooo Ooo Me Me Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh heh, you're a fucking idiot. Just admit it already. Mac software and hardware costs a fucking fortune compared to any other consumer computing solution--both per instance, and lifecycle. Before Leopard, you may have even gotten something for the extra cash. Hard to see it that way with the botch.

One small difference

[MCSEBear]

There is one small difference between Microsoft's release of Vista and Apple's release of Leopard. Apple's first service pack (10.5.1) was available for download right on the heels of the OS's release to the public. We're talking a matter of days here. Now Vista SP1 on the other hand... Well, it's supposed to ship... NEXT YEAR.

Unfortunately, the reality today is that companies push out software on 'internet time'. If you aren't familiar with the phrase, 'internet time', that's shorthand for 'fuck all that waiting around till the shit actually works noise'.

Now if you're a fanboy and want to install Vista or Leopard on a non-production box to play with teh shiny; well, I'm sure all your fellow geeks and I understand. However, If you install a brand new OS on a machine you need to do productive work on before service pack 2 then you really *are* a fucktard.

Re:One small difference

[nwoolls]

Right. Because Vista hasn't had any updates...

Sucks to be him.

[Anonymous Coward]

This article comes off as an angry, incoherent rant from someone who spilled coffee on his shirt on his way to work.

From the rant:

"Okay, the (Time Machine) screen looks like Star Wars. That's cool in an I-want-to-stay-a-virgin kind of way. But 'easy to use'? Which groupie said that? Try putting a new Apple user in front of this app and see what happens."

Mmmmkay. Try putting a new Windows user in front of Windows and see what happens.

I haven't had a kernel panic since Puma. Maybe I'm just lucky, but then again, I don't use a lot of random .X beta version numbered shovelware and crapware.

no problems here

[lucas teh geek]

I've got a Powerbook, a MacBook and a Hackintosh (965p/nvidia/pc_efi), all running leopard. I havent seen a crash yet. It's fun to sensationalize when you're having problems; but assuming that everyone else is having them too, and making comparisons to vista just makes you look like a fool. perhaps Olivers ram has gone bad or something?

Re:no problems here

[protohiro1]

Software has bugs. I run tiger still and until the latest firmware update for mbp I got kernel panics in certain (reproducible) situations. Desktops are going to be a little unstable, I have a freeBSD server that has never been rebooted except when I moved it, and a Linux desktop that has, in certain circumstances, had kernel panics. People use desktops. They install software, they run a bunch of apps. I find xp to be no more prone to BSODs that OS X is to kernel panics. I do find everything else about windows to be horrible, so I don't use it. But the os is no longer inherently unstable.

Re:no problems here

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fun to sensationalize when you're having problems; but assuming that everyone else is having them too, and making comparisons to vista just makes you look like a fool. perhaps Olivers ram has gone bad or something?

Hmmm, are you suggesting that his RAM was fine under Tiger, and then broke when he installed Leopard? I guess that's possible.

Side rant: why does he say "OS Ex" in the video?? That is sooooooo 2002. Even late-to-the-game switchers have had plenty of time to figure out that the 'X' is a Roman numeral ten.

Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'm the only one who has never had a crash yet with Leopard? I preordered and installed the same day it launched. No crashes yet, but I haven't done any heavy recording sessions with it yet. I use it daily with firefox and email, but only use it in the studio once in a while. But still, I use it daily and have had no serious issues aside from a ESATA card that doesn't work because the chipset manufacturer hadn't tested their drivers with leopard and the most popular esata drive on the market.

Potential Dump Fix

[chillybasen]

I've been getting dumps too. You can view the dump logs at /Library/Logs/PanicReporter/ Mine kept happening with "current thread: LCCDaemon" which I found out was logitech (my wireless keyboard) I updated to their most recent version and haven't dumped yet *crosses fingers*

hes just mad because the Apple ad makes him ..

[solosaint]

hes just mad because the Apple ad makes fun of someone who looks like him... I mean come on.... Leopard the SAME as Vista!?!? dude, dont be such a noob... i have had Zero problems with it, and i did an UPGRADE

Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"Many of the author's points dont make any sense in comparison to MS and Vista. SP1 isn't due out (as of now) till Q1 2008... OSX's update is already out... don't see the similarity. "

Um, you do realize that Microsoft has been releasing Vista fixes for months now via Windows Update, right? Fixes don't have to come as SPs or .0.1 updates.

But you're right, I don't see the similarity either. Vista has to work probably 3 orders of magnitude more configurations than OSX does, yet Leopard is still very buggy, even with 10.5.1, BTW.
And make no mistake: The author's complaints are not an isolated case.
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/update-leopard-problems-apple,review-1028.html
http://www.robhyndman.com/2007/11/14/ive-been-attacked-by-a-leopard/
http://scobleizer.com/2007/11/16/caught-in-apple-restart-hell/
http://scobleizer.com/2007/11/17/the-brand-promise-of-apple/
http://www.digg.com/apple/MacBook_MacBook_Pro_owners_suffer_keyboard_freezing_with_Leopard

And check out the Apple discussion forums (though Apple has seen fit to lock many of the threads that complain about Leopard's problems, so check out MacinTouch and AppleInsider.com forums too).

Apple's "Vista is crap" ad campaign and using BSOD icons for Windows network shares in Leopard makes this all the more embarrassing for Apple. And comedian Baratunde Thurston has publicly called out Apple on its unjustified smugness (even before Leopard was released).
Baratunde Thurston: I Hate the Smugness of Apple

Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

[RobertM1968]

Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

My post had nothing to do with excusing Apple for the bugs in Leopard - nor did I make any claim about Leopard NOT being buggy... actually I pointed out links that show just how many (and it isnt a small list) fixes Leopard needed - from Apple's very own web pages.

Um, you do realize that Microsoft has been releasing Vista fixes for months now via Windows Update, right? Fixes don't have to come as SPs or .0.1 updates.

Yeah, but Apple's 10.5.1 update seems quite similar to what MS would call a Service Pack... comparing it to the individual fixes MS releases isnt fair. That is why I even put links into my posts that showed what was fixed (BIG list for each link) - so the comparison to a Service Pack could be made (which is a far more accurate comparison).

Vista has to work probably 3 orders of magnitude more configurations than OSX does, yet Leopard is still very buggy, even with 10.5.1, BTW.

Ah... well, I am waiting to see those reports hit the net... (still buggy). As for the "magnitude more configurations" - yes, that is true... but wasn't the point. Saying 1 month (Apple) is equal to 12+ months (MS) as the author tried alluding to, simply isnt accurate.

And make no mistake: The author's complaints are not an isolated case.

I never disputed the validity of his complaints about OSX... I said the comparisons weren't accurate. I even said that the piece was fair in it's criticism of Leopard - but off the wall in it's comparison of the two (Leopard and Vista).

There are plenty of different reasons to gripe about Leopard from what I have read - also a reason I pointed out the links I did (because it LISTS all the issues that were resolved - and thus that were RELEASED in Leopard). Again, the point is, the comparisons dont make sense - even though his criticism of Leopard *by itself* may be accurate... and the comparisons make that criticism inccorect or skewed in some of the cases(for instance the GUI enhancements and networking - as I also pointed out).

I think perhaps you just misread my post... check out my followup posts as well - as they may help you to understand the first post a little better.

Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

[illegibledotorg]

I do find it somewhat humorous that two of your links are to the blog of Robert Scoble, self-proclaimed "Microsoft Geek Blogger"

Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

[Swampash]

Apple's using BSOD icons for Windows network shares in Leopard makes this all the more embarrassing for Apple.

So what icons does Windows use for representing Apple filesharing protocol shares?

Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

[MojoStan]

Um, you do realize that Microsoft has been releasing Vista fixes for months now via Windows Update, right? Fixes don't have to come as SPs or .0.1 updates. Yeah, but Apple's 10.5.1 update seems quite similar to what MS would call a Service Pack... comparing it to the individual fixes MS releases isnt fair. That is why I even put links into my posts that showed what was fixed (BIG list for each link) - so the comparison to a Service Pack could be made (which is a far more accurate comparison). I don't understand why you keep insisting on comparing a Windows Service Pack to an OS X 10.5.x update. I'm guessing you've never applied a Service Pack.

Compare the list of "improvements" (Apple's term) for the OS X 10.5.1 update (25 improvements) and the list of "fixes" for Windows XP Service Pack 2 (more than 800 fixes). Service Pack 2 also added "features" in addition to the "fixes."

Yes, XP SP2 was a biggie as far as Service Packs go. It had been 23 months since SP1.

Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

[gknoy]

I suspect it's either Clippy or a "searching ..." magnifying-glass-in-a-circle ... ;)

Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

[RobertM1968]

Sorry, but you forgot to follow the link (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798) on that very page and then follow those links for each update when you came up with your "25" figure. You'll notice it puts it much more on par with a regular Service Pack. This (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=307041) sublink alone (one of MANY on that second page you missed) contains more fixes than you counted (39 additional). I *do* know what I am talking about - but then again, I *read* the Apple page (which I actually posted in one of my previous posts - WITH the 2nd link that you missed).

So, here's the two main links for the 10.5.1 Update. On the second link, then go through each link on that page and count if you like...
-http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306907
-http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798

So, go back and add them back up if you want... when you are done, you'll find I am quite accurate in comparing the 10.5.1 update to a Service Pack.

Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

[explodingpickle.org]

Windows doesn't support Apple file sharing (AFP) in the first place. Which sucks because Samba is a security nightmare compared to AFP.

Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

So what icons does Windows use for representing Apple filesharing protocol shares?

That would be the "polished turd" icon.

I think I know the fix

[rtobyr]

I used to have the exact same problem. Ever since I applied this fix to X11 for the Gimp.app problems, I haven't had any more crashes.

Re:Vista is like MacOS 9, but does not work as wel

[willyhill]

Actually, OS 9 was an rather unstable (if visually attractive) platform, especially for high-memory usage scenarios. If you doubt that here's the Wikipedia article, wich states plainly enough:

While Mac OS 9 lacks the functionality of a modern operating system, such as protected memory and full pre-emptive multitasking, lasting improvements include the introduction of an automated Software Update engine and support for multiple users.

I used OS 9 for a few years, and while it was mostly OK, that annoying little sad Mac popped up once too often when working with Photoshop and PageMaker 7 for my liking. It's plain enough that you never used it.

Maybe it was more functional than Windows 95, but it was closer to it from a platform perspective than to Windows XP, so whatever failings XP had or has, OS 9 is still a full generation behind it. In reality it wasn't until OS X that Apple had a real operating system, much like NT4 for Microsoft. Your comparison is completely off the mark.

10.5.1 has KP'd about 30 times for me, details

[purlah]

I generally love Apple, but I have to agree.

Specifically, though, some applications tend to cause the system to KP, but only on Macbooks and Macbook Pros. One of the most prevalent is Azureus.

If you've been seeing panics, especially when running azureus, little snitch, or parallels, you might find the following interesting:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5665070
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1224480

The latest suggestions are that the IPv6 code in the Airport kext is at fault, which can be disabled easily (for now).

I've also had about five panics after turning the screen off. This appears to be the same panic, as covered below:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?p=1174408

Anyway, I'm getting really tired of it, and have started using my ubuntu desktop for primary productivity. Probably will downgrade to 10.4.11 if no effective fix comes out in the next few days.

Unfortunately, the problem is very real for macbook users.

I disagree about time machine

[pavera]

I plugged in my usb hard drive, it said "do you want to use it for time machine" I said "yes" and it started backing up. Maybe if you're trying to do something advanced the config isn't as intuitive, but from the trips I've taken through the settings for time machine it doesn't seem like there is much to configure except how often it backs up and selecting files to backup.

When I reinstalled (to de-select a few options in the install, and do a clean install instead of an upgrade), it asked "do you want to restore something from a time machine backup" I said "yes" I plugged in the drive, selected what I wanted and it restored all my files, music, and amazingly enough to me all of my apps, it took less than 10 minutes to restore ~30GB of data and apps... I've never had a cleaner backup restore in my life.

Granted I haven't used vista's "image" based backup, and maybe that is just as slick, but somehow I think I could take my time machine backup and restore it to a completely new machine, and I'd be willing to bet just about anything that vista's "image" would blue screen on a new pc. At the very least it would be completely disabled until I called MS and got it to register again.

I've used every version of windows built in backup (except Vista), veritas, an emc backup system... None of them could restore APPLICATIONS to the hard drive. I'm sure the registry has something to do with that, and maybe this "image" backup in vista is really slick... But I won't go through the pain of the rest of Vista to find out. Also I've never found any backup software to be "easy" or "intuitive" to set up properly. I would argue that is a main reason why so many PCs go without backups.

Don't get me wrong, Leopard is not a perfect OS, I have had some stability issues, gmail seemed to invariably crash firefox before the .1 release, I've seen a few more app crashes than usual. I have not had a complete system crash. I am running firefox 3 beta, other than that I pretty much run production ready software not all the crazy beta and alpha stuff he lists in his article. Apple will have 10.5.2 released in short order I'm sure, and it will fix more issues.

Comparing Leopard to Vista really isn't too smart I don't think though. I tried to use Vista for a week, it was so entirely painful I went back to XP. I don't have time to relearn where every setting in the entire OS is located now. While a couple things changed from Tiger to Leopard, I haven't felt lost once. Really his complaints (aside from the stability issue) seem like a huge stretch to me, yeah the blue dots aren't as clear as the black arrows, but comparing that to "we changed 2 clicks to 12 to change your IP address" is just not in the same league. OSs shouldn't crash, and its unfortunate that leopard isn't the best platform for alpha testing software yet, it will be in less than 6 months.

I've gone through every version of OS X since 10.1... its been the same each time, 10.1-4.0 were all much less stable once they get to 10.x.3-4 though everything settles down and it is rock solid. All in all, since about 10.4.4 I have been about 90% mac and 10% windows user, Leopard has not changed that usage pattern, and its not going to.

Another one flaimbait on pcmag...

[hotfireball]

I had read the article. *Yaaaaaaaawnnn*... Hey, pcmag dude, I own three Macs at home and bunch of PCs, one of it Microsoft-dedicated and at the company infrastructure heavily mixed with Apple stuff. Usually, Apple OS release at the beginning is a plain crap and mostly at the edge of impossibility to use. Thus from my admin practice:

• Leopard upgrade from Tiger was easiest and painful-less upgrade I saw ever. It just freakin works, as freakin advertised. I was that surprised...

• So far it works much more stable as even Tiger 10.4.3 on its release.

• I never had any BSOD even with Developer Preview builds. Yes, I had troubles with wireless long time ago, but no BSODs.

• I had never any troubles with any software installed after upgrade. It all works and launches just fine. A bunch of third-party software I just use daily...

• Upgrades from Apple -- != service packs from Microsoft and happens much often than MS Windows OS. Here PCMag says a plain bullshit which actually drives me nuts (/. folks, please forgive me these fucking swearwords).

• You complain for you can't set up Time Machine from within Time Machine? Scattered across UI settings like a shit hits a fan sounds better to you, huh?

• For changing background or switch between 3D and 2D dock, use http://www.malcom-mac.com/pimpmydock/ thing.

• To turn off transparency, use the following command in your terminal:

  sudo defaults write /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.WindowServer 'EnvironmentVariables' -dict 'CI_NO_BACKGROUND_IMAGE' 1

• Complains overall looks kinda lame to me: better find any similarities between Apple and Vista of hardware greediness and performance. Leopard works fucking faster than Tiger on the fucking same hardware.

• I don't care about block-level backups. If Apple would do this stupid thing once, I would probably move all my ~ homefolder to Subversion over again. Hard links rocks, but chunked changed bytes equals to no backup, if your proprietary software dead.

PCMag: yawn.

Use ubuntu?

[NightCreature]

I'm using Gutsy (Ubuntu 7.10) and it's great. Plus you don't have to ditch out hundreds of dollars for an OS. It runs great on my machine, can't really complain about anything. I have it running for 2 months without any restarts :D Sweet :-)

Re:is this news?

[poopdeville]

I just bought a new machine. I'm very happy with it. I'd rather drop the Stacks, I liked having one click access to my Applications folder Finder windows. Spaces are okay -- I never need to use them with a screen this big. No grey screens or "real" panics at all. And I'm glad the machine came with Leopard. I look forward to using the Cocoa/Ruby bridge to write Cocoa applications with Ruby, and brushing up on my Objective C. I'm not currently using the Time Machine, but I will once I get a big enough external drive (or two).

That said, I wouldn't have bought Leopard if it hadn't come with the machine. At least not until an application I was actually interested in running needed it. I do expect those to show up eventually as developers start using Ruby and Python and Objective C 2.0 for development.

All those folks that said Apple was stupid for..

[rjschwarz]

Delaying the release of Leopard are probably feeling pretty stupid right now. I think the one fair comparison between Leopard and Vista is that the bulk of people have no problem with the OS but there is certainly a problem that is hitting enough folks in both camps that the companies should be embarrassed.

Wait! Hold on one goddamn minute here!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

We aren't finished ripping off the first Vista!

OH...MY...GOD...

[Anonymous Coward]

6 Reboots?! That's a travesty! >_>

I guess he's never used Windows 98.

Easy Kernel Panic

[Paradise Pete]

I was getting frequent kernel panics at first. At least a half dozen. It turned out to be a combination of Azureus and a wireless connection. It was very frustrating until I figured it out. I switched to Transmission and have not had any trouble since.

As for Leopard in general, I wouldn't go back to 10.4 if you paid me. Time Machine alone is worth every penny. It is extraordinarily impressive. To be able to visually flip through older versions is amazingly useful.

all they need is time

[nerdyalien]

Vista or Leopard.. they gonna need time to fix the problems and make it stable.

I am working with Ericsson telephone systems. When I first installl them.. they give real freak failures in first week or two. It won't stop there, about first 2 or 3 months, they tend to get problems. Some can be due to ambiguoty in wiring telephones.. some can be coding.. some can be actual hardware it self. One way or another.. it takes about 3 months for a telephone system to reach its stable state. After that.. it can run non-stop for few years till hardware fails.

OS is an event based big code. So the ambiguous nature is in tera-scale. Problem today is, testing any gizmo is a nightmare due to complexity and size. I think it is unfair to expect a "fault-proof" OS or a software from anyone.

Also we can't really blame for any software guy for bloated nature (mostly graphics add on) in their products. Only few people (mostly people in IT or Engineering) really appreciate the inner workings of a OS (stability, security etc.). But majority find GUI the main catch over others... in fact.. is the only way a software company can deliver the message "this is a new product"

Vista Stability

[Brentfire]

In my experience, I haven't had a single problem with vista. I've been running vista since the beginning of august, and it has never crashed on me once. I'm not some n00blet pc fanboy--certainly not. I use macs frequently, and I agree that they have their merits, but I cannot stand the vista bashing that is happening. I do advanced work on vista, and install and uninstall programs frequently. my pc still runs like a charm, and I leave it on for months at a time. seriously, stop the vista bashing. if you have a decent computer, it runs fine. end of story.

His experiences are unusually bad

[gujo-odori]

Within my overall employer, there are over 4,000 Mac users (a minority still, but growing), and within my particular business unit, almost the entire engineering division is Mac, and the few that aren't are mostly FreeBSD. A few Linux users and even fewer Windows users. In fact, the guy in the cube next to me, who just refreshed to a Mac, may have been the last one. Among those 4,000 people, quite a few have upgraded to Leopard already, and I've seen their discussions of various issues on our very high-traffic internal Mac mailing list.

Certainly, there have been some issues, but nobody has reported the level of crashes that he's been seeing. I think his unfortunate experience is an edge case.

That many crashes is, IMO, not really acceptable, especially for a *nix-based OS, but I don't think the Vista comparison is very apt. For starters, in TFA he says their own reviewer recommends not upgrading to 10.5.1. Pretty much everyone who already installed Leopard where I work has upgraded to the latest release, and the reports I hear are that it has made all problems better. Instead of listening to his reviewer, he should update.

If you're getting the idea that I'm still on Tiger, you're right. I know better than to install a .0 release of a new major version of an OS until it's been well flogged in the real world and a bunch of updates are out :-) Although, my colleagues who are on Leopard are happy with it, though. I haven't heard anyone say they wish they hadn't done it. My important Linux systems are still on Kubuntu Feisty, too, just in case. Gutsy seems very stable on the test machines, though.

The second point on which the Vista comparison fails is that unlike Vista, Leopard offers a number of compelling features that make people want to upgrade. Vista has been out a lot longer than Leopard, but I'd be very surprised if Leopard doesn't already have a higher percentage of upgraders than Vista has. XP Users seem to be sitting tight, for the most part. Among Tiger users, it's not a question of upgrading or not, but of how soon. The reason most XP users are not upgrading is they see no compelling reason to do so. Most of what Vista added is eye candy, and it has some downsides in the form of annoying security dialogs and a lot more DRM than XP has.

Third, unlike Vista, Leopard didn't have to shed its most compelling features in order to ship. Vista was supposed to come with wonderful new technologies like WinFS, which was not only dropped from Vista, but has been completely dropped as a standalone product. A rumor went around that XFS would be the Leopard file system; that turned out to be just a rumor. And it is available in Leopard, it's just not the default file system. All the really cool stuff that was supposed to be in Vista mostly isn't. There are those who say the security model is better (and maybe it is, although those annoying dialogs are worse than useless), but what people mainly see in Vista is eye candy. Eye candy that takes a lot more horsepower to really make use of. Even there, Vista fails it compared to Leopard (or even Tiger) in terms of looks.

And that's without even getting started on functionality, reliability, ease of use, and consistency. For all of its .0 release faults, Leopard is still ahead of Vista, there, too.

Finally, what may be the biggest difference of all between Vista and Leopard: a year from now, Leopard will have achieved significant adoption in the Mac user base. I'll go out on a limb and say that a year from its release, Leopard will not only have a greater percentage of the Mac user base than Vista has of the Windows user base when it reaches 1 year of general public release on Jan. 30 2008, but that one year from its release, Leopard will have a greater percentage of the Mac market than Vista has of the Windows market at *two* years from its release.

That last may sound like a fanboy statement, but it's really not. It's just recognition of the facts that Mac users, unlike X

Re:Leopard is quite like Vista (my own experiences

[ubernostrum]

Frequently my workspace switches for no reason, sometimes several times in a row

I don't know if this is what's happening to you, but I ran into something similar. The key combo for jumping to beginning/end of a document in most apps is Fn+arrow key, while the combo for switching spaces is Ctrl+arrow key; in my case I was just occasionally hitting the wrong key with my pinky and triggering Spaces.

Re: Nobody? Guess I am nobody then

[caution live frogs]

I'm not running Unsanity and I don't use Logitech mice. I have a USB MS Intellimouse that worked fine in Tiger and now randomly jumps all over the screen without warning. The 10.5.1 update helped this, but now the touchpad is iffy. During a presentation today the damn thing went into spasms of fading to a blue screen and then blanking out before returning to the slideshow, repeatedly, for no apparent reason. This is on an upgraded MacBook Pro. Try doing illustration work when you have zero control over your mouse pointer. That's a big problem for me. The crap thing is that the hardware works fine in BootCamp, which means that Apple's Windows touchpad drivers are now better than their OS X ones.

My coworker just bought a new MacBook with Tiger pre-installed. Nothing crazy added. Trying to set up BootCamp for her was a huge pain. Easy as pie in Tiger, but Leopard made things really difficult. Took three attempts to get the Windows partition formatted correctly, and now it works but she cannot choose to boot from that partition using the Option key - the system fails to recognize the partition exists until after booting into Leopard. She has to wait for it to fully load the OS, then choose her preferred startup disk in Preferences and reboot if she wants to run Windows. As a new Mac user who needs Windows for a lot of work-related tasks, she is understandably upset. I cannot understand why the BootCamp beta works better than the final release.

As for the networking, you should have heard me swearing bloody murder at my Mac last week while trying to back up files to my home Windows system. The computers sit three feet away from each other hooked to the same router, but it took fifteen minutes, complete disabling of the firewall and a reboot of the Mac to get it to admit that my Windows box existed. That's an improvement? NTFS read-write would have been an improvement, but the current state is not.

The inclusion of an up-to-date Apache build and PHP 5 is an improvement. Adding pointless eye candy, breaking hardware that used to work properly, borking networking, and screwing up BootCamp is not an improvement. The "vocal minority" are vocal because the things that broke are crucial to the work we try to do on our computers.

Same here

[Almahtar]

On my primary machine WinXP crashes pretty regularly and the only app I've installed and use is Flash CS3. When I use Linux on the same machine I can put it under much heavier loads and while it may slow down (understandable with only 512 MB of ram) it doesn't crash. I think the reason the GP's XP machine doesn't crash often is because it (by his/her admission) isn't used often.

Azureus

[Nexum]

This guys only problem (that he really rails about) is a kernel panic caused by Azureus (and some Apple bug in the networking stack. This is terrible, yes, but it's a single (bad) bug that he's seeing. He just doesn't know what's causing it so he attributes it to the general bugginess of Leopard. I kow this because this is the problem I had, and have spent onsiderable time chasing the Apple discussion forums and my friends to nail it down. Google 'Leopard Azureus Kernel Panic' for more info. It's a serious and really annoying bug for sure, but it's **one** bug. Leopard != Vista.

That sucks

[Noxal]

I've been running Leopard since day 1 and I haven't had a single problem. Then again, I didn't upgrade. I backed my shit up, wiped my drive, and did a fresh, clean installation. I wonder if these issues are issues brought on by upgrading?

Re:That sucks

[Jerry Rivers]

It looks to as if the OP has hardware problems, such as flaky RAM.

Mac Office, VLC have something in common

[wardk]

they exist to attempt to make windows crap run on a mac

and he has trouble with BETA firefox. wow, alert the press.

I have leopard on a 3+ year old dual G5, a 3 year old iMac, and Mac Mini and my wife has an intel iBook

all with Microsoft office and VLC and Firefox.

NOT A SINGLE CRASH EVER ON ANY BOX

however, Office will alway throw a spurious error loading the "microsoft framework" despite service pack after service pack. if anything I'd call it purposeful, maybe to bait morons like this author

PC Magazine? this guy needs to find real work

#5 is going quite a bit too far

[SanityInAnarchy]

He also complains about a few things that show that either Apple is dumber than I thought, or he's missing some fundamental concepts.

News flash: EVERY backup app can take a snapshot of the entire file system.

Nope. Last I tried MS backup -- which was awhile ago, I admit -- it was roughly equivalent to a simple copy, not any kind of snapshot. On Windows, this means it can't backup most open files, which means you're not going to get most of your system stuff.

So, news flash: Some backup apps just plain suck. I'm glad Apple is showcasing this -- at least users will be aware of it, and ensure that no one ever sells a "backup" app again that doesn't do this in some way.

First, you can do an image-based bare-metal restore with the MS version

I don't even do that when I backup Windows. I use a nice little utility called ntfsclone, which makes a "sparse" image of NTFS (unused space isn't backed up).

See, backups should record at a logical level, not a "bare-metal" level, while still encompassing everything needed to get the system back in a working state. To backup Linux, for instance, all you usually need is /etc, /home, and a list of packages to install.

Time Machine needs a working version of Leopard to talk to, so why am I backing up all that system stuff?

And what is it that does the "bare-metal restore" on his MS version? The tooth fairy?

I don't actually know how Time Machine does a restore. I imagine it involves either booting the OS X install DVD -- which does, itself, run OS X -- and restoring with that, or installing a brand-new Leopard and then restoring -- which actually makes a lot of sense, as that "system" stuff will have been patched/tweaked/corrupted/whatever. The net result, unless Apple is dumber than I thought, is exactly the same as the Vista restore.

Even if it requires you to plug the thing into another Mac via FireWire, figure that the most important part of a backup is that the backup is complete. A full restore is not something you need to do often, and when you do, it's generally because your computer exploded or something, so you do want to bring in the techs. And Time Machine does make partial restores easier.

Can't argue with the block-level stuff, except to say that you should backup virtual machines as if they were computers (so backup Fedora with rsync and Vista with MS Backup), and that Entourage is horribly written -- pretty much anything that uses a "database" format instead of the filesystem for data of any size, in a desktop app, is broken. I mean, yes, Time Machine could've done this better (though it's not easy), but that doesn't make Entourage any less retarded.

Works well on my MacBook

[HiramvdG]

Leopard does not fully live up to the hype, but it's stable on my MacBook Core 2 Duo 2 GHz and what it brings is good: Time Machine, QuickLook, Core Image, Spaces.

No, it's not.

[Jugalator]

XP may remain a common OS among Windows users, but many sure won't jump ship to OS X.

The operating systems aren't software compatible, OS X don't have alternatives for everything, and it's a hassle to use workarounds like virtual machines or Boot Camp to jump between them.

Re:No, it's not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtual machines are not a hassle-- it's easier to run Windows in a VM than on a real PC, because it's easier to fix it if it shits the bed.

I run Parallels on my MacBook for a few Windows-only apps I need for work. The icons for those are sitting in my OS X dock with my Mac app icons, and they just run in their own window like any OS X app. I barely even know Windows is there.

Re:No, it's not.

[gimple]

I am forced to use XP for work.

And I have my kids use Edubuntu on an old laptop.

When the hard drive on our family laptop crashed, my wife declared that she wanted a Mac. We did jump ship, and we are happy with it, meaning we will let everyone we know that we made the jump and are satisfied.

Chatter, but the zeolots are saying it too

[Anonymous Coward]

The real fanboys, the guys who have been very loyal to Apple since the earliest days, are giving it mixed reviews. The silly arbitrary changes are frustrating, and many of them are experiencing an alphabet soup of problems.

Just to pull out a few of the litany of gripes:

The Back To My Mac feature appears to go insane if it can't contact the mothership (but fortunately most people are clever enough to realize .Mac is a lot more expensive than it's usually worth, and some other are skeptical of the security of such a feature).

The gratuitous arbitrary changes (menus, useless icons, reduced Dock functionality, etc...) to the interface are cited as frustrating and obnoxious.

Time Machine is a mixed bag, causing awful slowdowns for some users.

Of course, not everything is bad and many people are also very pleased with it, but there's an undercurrent of frustration. It sounds like a lot of them would agree that 10.5 was released half baked.

The real point, however, is that many of these complaints are coming from the ultra-ulta-fanboys. Consider, for example, the things expatriates of the defunct xlr8yourmac.com bulletin board are saying (see the MacOSX and Leopard boards for a most enlightening glimpse in to their minds on this matter): BD AQUA'S Fish and Macquarium

[Background: the xlr8yourmac bulletin boards were, until they collapsed several years ago, the center of gravity for much of the Mac enthusiast and modding world. Apparently the much diminished but core group has managed to hang together and retreat to a free forum site following the collapse of their original digs. These are very hardcore Mac boosters.]

Works okay here, but must upgrade Helvetica Neue

[WillAdams]

It broke EarthDesk so I had to upgrade (gotta have the desktop eye candy --- anyone know of any similar time-synched desktop changing apps? In Windows I use the ancient Phases of the Moon ``PHOON.exe'')

More significant is Apple's making Helvetica.dfont and HelveticaNeue.dfont _MANDATORY_ --- even if you're quick enough to deactivate, delete and replace the .dfonts w/ Type 1 versions, the system will replace the .dfonts creating a font conflict.

It wouldn't be so bad except the metrics for HelveticaNeue.dfont are different from the Type 1 version _and_ the naming of variants doesn't match so not only is it not a drop-in replacement, once one has finished mapping things, the layout doesn't match and line breaks are usually different --- this makes Leopard a real deal-breaker for shops w/ legacy jobs in Helvetica Neue Type 1.

Translation:

Anyone w/ such jobs _must_ upgrade at least their Helvetica Neue to the OpenType version --- for us, that means that we'll be deferring purchasing any new Macs which run Leopard until _after_ we've upgraded to Adobe Font Folio OpenType Edition _and_ gotten every template, every stylesheet and at least one issue of every publication switched over to Helvetica Neue T1 _and_ tested _and_proofed_ line-for-line.

Article on it here:

http://www.creativetechs.com/iq/preparing_for_leopard_helvetica_is_dead.html

William

Re:Works okay here, but must upgrade Helvetica Neu

[WillAdams]

Naturally, that last should've read, ``...switched over to Helvetica Neue _OpenType_''.

William

Re:Works okay here, but must upgrade Helvetica Neu

[Jerry Rivers]

We use a font manager that can manage system fonts and have no problems whatsoever.

No you are not that rare...

[Savage-Rabbit]

I've never had a crash, all of my software has worked perfectly. Of course, I did do a fresh install and selectively moved my old programs back - rather than an Upgrade. 0 problems. I wouldn't touch Vista with a 16 foot pike so I can only comment on Leopard. I have made it a simple rule never to upgrade OS X. I always do a clean install when a new release of OS X comes along. I migrate nothing from the old machine except the files that I keep on the desktop, the stuff in the Documents, Movies, Pictures and Music folders and the command-line files such as .bashrc, .vimrc etc... and perhaps saved games. No applications get migrated. Perhaps this is a leftover superstition from the days when I was a Windows 98 user but it has resulted in me not having had any problems with any of the OS X releases so far apart from minor issues with Samba. The clean install also resulted in the fact that I gained several Gigs worth of disk space. I also make a point of being careful about using non-Apple kernel extensions and installing Unsanity software and the likes. If one is really paranoid one should wait to install a new OS X version until at least the 10.X.2 update rolls out. I imagine the same pretty much applies to Windows, i.e. wait for the first service pack.

I won't say that I have had 0 problems with Leopard, it has proven to be more troublesome than most previous OS X releases. The keyboard problem is really the first one where they crossed my pain threshold. This issue does go away for a while if you reset your PRAM and NVRAM but eventually it comes back which is totally unacceptable. Another gripe I have is that iMovie HD 6 crashes on me while doing simple stuff like viewing a help topic. Other than this, and the absence of Java 6, I have few complaints. I especially don't understand why some people complain about useless features being added. If people think they are useless nobody is forcing them to use these features. Personally I rather like Spaces and the Time Machine backup utility is IMHO one of the best features to be added to OS X...... ever. I know there have been a number of backup solutions around for OS X for a long time starting with rsync, I have tried all of the desktop backup solutions for OS X but none of them can quite match the ease of use of Time Machine. It won't satisfy a professional server admin but for my purposes it is just fine.

Never change a running system!

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially when there's absolutely no positive reason why one should upgrade.
I mean there are no new features or software that would justify upgrading to Leopard and taking the risk of running into problems,
yet herds of sheepish users do it nonetheless.
Why? Because they're hypnotized by bullshit marketing and the misperception that an upgrade must be good, because it's "NEW!".

Most all leopard crashes are tiger update related

[ryanw]

I have been running tiger for about a month now. I installed the OS fresh, no update from tiger and it works beautifully. I haven't had any crashes but I have found some qwerks with a few things here and there, but that's kinda' par for the course for being on the bleeding edge. Anyone who depends on an OS to be rock solid and doesn't have time to play with growing pains should wait for the second or third revision and make sure all their drivers for all their devices is compatible before going for it.

I made these recommendations back when I supported windows. I actually didn't recommend people leaving from Windows 95 to Windows 98 until Windows 98 SE. Windows 98 SE was rock solid. This is the same recommendation I give to people when they want to update from Adobe CS2 to Adobe CS3 for their print shops. If their lively hood depends on a product working a specific way, don't be the first ones out the gate to migrate to it. Let it solidify and become rock solid, then move to it. There is no way any developer can test their product in every scenario in their labs and beta programs.

Being this said, I would expect things to be pretty freaking rock solid 6 months after release no matter the product. In the past apple has kept an amazing track record of making consistent updates to the OS. Also of note, apple has been able to increase my hardware's life with each release of a new OS. I have some old G3 iBooks laying around that just keep getting faster and faster with each OS release. I was amazed at how they kept breathing new life into my old machines.

My Leopard Experiences...

[PhotoGuy]

While I think it's laughable to call it a failure at all, especially a failure on the order of Vista, Leopard, as released, does have a number of disappointments for me. I expect them to be automatically fixed in a software update before long, which is far less painful than a massive SP2 or whatever. Here's what I've found:

Some application incompatibility; most Softphones I've tried won't connect to their server. X-Lite won't, and after pointing the finger to Apple (and somewhat rightfully so), have grudgingly stated they will come out with an update for it. But what magical thing could they be using on a TCP/IP stack that would suddenly break??? Something weird must have changed at quite a low level. (The free SJPhone, which works with Vonage, does seem to be one of the rare ones that does work, which will do for now.)

While Spotlight does offer more features and flexibility now, it does come with a performance penalty. I seem to get reindexing and indexing more often than before, slowing down the system.

General system performance seems more sluggish, and boot times a fair bit higher than Tiger. Things like Expose' seemed a little jerkier than in Tiger. (Although this seems a bit better lately, perhaps 10.5.1 update helped this.)

I had one program (Azureus) that wrote to syslog with a bunch of exceptions; Leopard now keeps its syslog in a database (/var/log/asl.db). When this file got large due to Azureus, syslogd suddenly started taking up 99% of the CPU, dragging down the system. It took awhile to chase this one down, having to remove asl.db and kill syslogd (so it auto-restarted). That's a pretty sloppy hole for a consumer OS, in my opinion. (Although one could partially blame Azurues/Java for dumping excessive amount of exceptions to syslog in the first place.)

I've seen my first OSX crashes with Leopard, as well. The were all centered around plugging/unplugging USB devices; in this case, a dying/dead USB MP3 player. Yes, the player was not responding well (bad ram), but it's no excuse for the USB driver bringing down the system. I haven't seen this repeated, so maybe it was isolated to that one bad device, or maybe the 10.5.1 update fixed it.

I have seen one or two occasions where the system just got so sluggish and unresponsive that I had to reboot. Rebooting to make the system run better was unheard of in Tiger.

Adobe Professional's PDF virtual printer thingy doesn't work in Leopard. Adobe has acknowledged this, and promised an update early in the new year. Ugh. Thankfully OS X's print dialog has a save-to-pdf option, which will do for now, although I find it's not quite as good generated PDF content as Acrobat printer produces. (Sometimes, hauling things into Acrobat, then optimizing/saving them, works out okay.)

iWork's "Pages" consistently crashed whenever I tried to edit a table (unless I kept the mouse *extremely* still after clicking in the table, d'oh). An auto update a couple of weeks after Leopard's release seems to have fixed this one nicely, though.

There were a couple of low-levelish kernel extensions that no longer worked for me, but that's not terribly surprising in a major upgrade, and they were nothing core to my work, just curiosities.

Mounting Windows shares seems to be a bit less reliable than before. Some times it won't connect, and once or twice I had to reboot because finder was wedged trying to mount a share, and I couldn't even relaunch Finder. Not great. But things seem to be working better lately (maybe 10.5.1 helped that).

All that being said, I was amazed at how smooth the update from Tiger went; coming from the Windows world, I expected a reinstall to be the only feasible upgrade option. The upgrade to Leopard, however, went off without a hitch. (I did extensive backups, and a test install on an external drive, being so paranoid of losing my stuff in the upgrade, but it wasn't needed, it seems.) Almost everything worked, except for the bits mentioned above. Parallels was one app

Re:My Leopard Experiences...

[aaarrrgggh]

Ditto on the USB crash. Hung up my tethered cell phone, closed the cover, and unplugged my phone. Only kernel panic in a month or so.

Plenty of things I don't really like, but not a bad upgrade.

Just like grays it all out and stuff

[Trogre]

The OS just grays out my desktop and pops up a dialog box telling me I've got to reboot.

Sounds like... a bummer.

Re:Just like grays it all out and stuff

[Wiseman1024]

Sounds like "We've just crashed, but we did in such a way we're so much better than Microsoft". Trendy people should always have their OS crash this way.

Others choose to skip crashes by installing a stable Unix system.

It's called the APE syndrome

[InterBigs]

My guess is this guy still has the awful Unsanity Application Enhancer installed. This piece of s**tware has proven itself to be a cause of so many troubles over the year (including the 'blue screen' problem that oaccure after Leopard upgrades).. I can't understand why people still use it.

It's not that Apple is infallible, but comparing Leopard to Vista is a bit much.

Re:It's called the APE syndrome

[Ilgaz]

My guess is this guy still has the awful Unsanity Application Enhancer installed. This piece of s**tware has proven itself to be a cause of so many troubles over the year (including the 'blue screen' problem that oaccure after Leopard upgrades).. I can't understand why people still use it.

It's not that Apple is infallible, but comparing Leopard to Vista is a bit much. APE won't "cause" problems he describes since at worst case scenario (older version), it will make BSOD before booting or if user has latest version installed, it will NOT LOAD.

Stop apologizing for Apple. Every OS first major upgrade since beginning of IT history has problems. Vendor (in this case, Apple) gets notified instead of being apologized for and they eventually FIX the problems or... as in Vista case, people DECLINE to upgrade.

The third party Application (Non Hack) problems will keep happening until Apple gives a shit to 3rd party software (at least popular) while developing upgrades. Their "we code the kernel and frameworks, if your app fails, launch xcode and fix it" attitude costs them.

Yep, there are issues alright...

[dekket]

I have two issues;
- Copying a symlink/alias to a FAT drive crashes and hangs the entire system. (Can anyone say HARD REBOOT?)
- Adobe Illustrator and InDesign is screwed to the point where its unusable.
- Spotlight hangs when indexing a massive amount of data, such as a newly plugged in USB drive already full of 500gb porn.

In spite of this, I refuse to downgrade because I love the new finder (much more stable), coverflow browsing is awesome and rather quite useful, and stacks have actually proven (at least for me,) to be a space-saver, even though I didn't buy it at first.

All in all, there are some major upgrades to be done, but I'm not downgrading any time soon.

Wasn't VS Supposed.. wait.. What?

[denzacar]

Hold on... let me get this straight...

A doesn't have something (because it was made without it) - but it is supposed to have it?
And B doesn't have something (again - because it was made without it) - but in this case its just "ah well - its not there"?

Seems to me that according to that logic B's "added functionality" is just useless fluff. I mean... It wasn't "SUPPOSED" to be there.

And somehow... you manage to make it sound that when A got what it was "supposed to have" is a much worse case then when B got what "wasn't there before".

Kinda like saying "Yeah, those homeless people now DO have a roof over their head, but they are still ugly. Buy my new tits are so sexy, aren't they?"

Let's not forget...

[solios]

... that Vista wasn't only years late, many of the highly touted features (the new file system, for one) were cut in the process.

Leopard shipped Feature Complete.

Vista shipped late because Windows is a huge disgusting bastard of a codebase.

Leopard shipped late because Apple took the QA team off of the OS and put it on the f*cking iPhone so the iPhone could ship in a timely fashion.

I dunno about you, but that says a lot about Apple's priorities to me. It also cheeses me off a bit, as Leopard is something I use, whereas even if I did have a use for a cell phone, I couldn't possibly afford an iPhone. :P

High on Leopards...

[denzacar]

My whole family's been on Leopard since it came out and has also had no crashes at all. Are you perchance related to Ellen Feiss?

Personal experience after a month's use

[simong]

I'm running Leopard on a black Macbook and a top end Mac Mini bought in September and October last year. I've had a variety of frustrations, including a printer (Lexmark X5470) which is supposed to be supported natively but isn't, a network disk that isn't yet supported, and perhaps the most annoying thing, but one that I only discovered this week, the complete removal of MySQL on my Macbook, including databases. OK, I should have backed up, but do you expect an upgrade to trash your user space really?
The UI is pretty but superfluous, perhaps more taking its cue from Compiz than Aero, and the add-ons like Spaces work but are less intuitive than the Virtual Desktop apps that they replaced. Time Machine is handy but overblown and I expect third party applications that replace the UI with a less complicated interface Real Soon Now.
I couldn't accuse Apple of Vistaisation (ugh) but I think Leopard takes the Just Works principle another step, away from the power user and closer to appliance style operation, and while it might have the effect of pulling in more eyes and ears for the desktop, it might send those of us who want a working unix on our laptops back to Ubuntu. I know I'm thinking about it.

Re:Personal experience after a month's use

[smack.addict]

MySQL is not a user-space application.

I like the point about "improving stability"...

[w4rl5ck]

"Microsoft has delivered clear improvements in stability over time--a feat you'd think Apple might want to emulate."

Well, yes, he got Tiger 10 month ago, when the product was in the wild for about 1.5 years, had been fixed over and over again. Tiger in the early days was just a mess, and I simply can not understand why he just states out of nothing:

"Apple does not delivere clear improvements in stability" - just because in the timeframe he used Tiger there simply have been - nearly - no stability issues with the product.

Now, with a new cat in the wild, we users have the same problems as always, the software simply does not work. Leopard HAS issues (very much like Tiger had, that is), and I'm sure they will be addressed. If I'm not mistaken, the first two updates have already been seeded, so:

what I don't get is why he complains about "nothing is improving".

There are reasons why more experienced Mac-addicts always wait for 10.x.1 before they upgrade to the new system :)

The reported errors in Leopard ARE a shame. No way not to acknowledge them. But Apple not trying to improve the situation - haha.

Well, I understand that they don't change there website, telling us "who, don't get a Mac right now, we need four more month to tweek Leopard until it's REALLY stable".

Oh, by the way: our production testing systems are running Leopard since early developer seeds of Leopard, and yes, there WAS improvement in stability %)

Keyboard Freezing bug

[moderators_are_w*nke]

No to mention the keyboard freeze bug that appears to be affecting MacBooks and MacBook Pros.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/11/21/macbook_macbook_pro_owners_suffer_keyboard_freezing_with_leopard.html

My anecdotal evidence can beat up yours!

[jacobw]

He claims that Leopard drops packets and loses connections. I have a bunch of Leopard machines on both wired and wireless networks and have seen absolutely no evidence that this is true.

Well, if we're just swapping anecdotal evidence, my wireless network connection has been a nightmare in Leopard, to the point where I am now using an external wireless router rather than my internal Airport card. The external router works great; the Airport card constantly drops the connection.

As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not "data," but for what it's worth... there's a thread on the Leopard section of the Apple support board called Airport Problem. It has 526 responses and 27,735 views, making it one of the biggest and most-viewed threads on the entire support board, which tends to suggest that this is a fairly widespread problem.

Maybe you're right, and the author of the piece, the hundreds of people posting in that thread, the thousands viewing it, and I are all "idiotic fucks] who screwed up our install," to borrow your elegant phrase.Maybe the author of TFA is right and Apple has screwed things up mamothly and Leopard is a disaster. Or maybe--and this is where I'd put my money--Leopard is neither disastrous nor flawless; it's big complicated piece of newly released software, and we all ought to have a little patience with each other while the bugs get caught and fixed.

But how many issues does it really have?

[RedBear]

I'm not even going to attempt to deny that Leopard may (probably does) have some actual serious issues. But I would like to just point out a couple of mitigating issues, based on a few years of administering and doing freelance work on various Macs.

A bit of background here:

There are three different ways to install Mac OS X: Upgrade, Archive & Install, and Erase & Install. Of the three methods, "Upgrade" is of course the first choice and usually selected by default unless something prevents you from having that option (like if you're booting from a disc containing an _older_ version than what's installed on the hard drive, or you're installing to an empty drive). Thus, most users do an upgrade to a new version of Mac OS X via the "Upgrade" method, which attempts to upgrade the system in situ, leaving user files, network settings and everything else alone, if possible. It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it that this is a method that will be highly prone to failure due to the complexity of the operating system and its interaction with various configuration files, applications and user settings. That is, files and settings that will be different on every computer.

Just for kicks, I attempted to use the "Upgrade" method on several computers at one organization when they decided to move from Panther (10.3) to Tiger (10.4) a few months ago. Every system there was working great, fully up to date with the latest system and security updates for Panther. I had previously been working at this place and had taken very good care of their computers so that everyone else could just get on with their jobs. The only reason they were upgrading was to stay current with security updates after the release of Leopard and to make sure they would be able to install pretty much any software they felt like trying out. A lot of software was already requiring Tiger even a year ago.

I took all the necessary precautions prior to the upgrades, including scanning for hardware and memory errors, running maintenance checks on the hard drive data with utilities like DiskWarrior (latest version at the time, found no real issues), repairing permissions before and after, applying any applicable firmware updates, and so on. Been doing this for a while, and I did everything "right" as far as I'm aware.

Nevertheless, after the "Upgrade" it seemed there was about a 50% chance of some bizarre and obscure problem cropping up that made the systems practically unusable. And I do mean bizarre. The main issue I found was that _some_ of the upgraded machines could see other machines on the network but could no longer connect to any of them no matter what settings or login information were used. The Network Browser was simply broken, and in a networked environment with file servers, database servers and network printers, that made the machine almost useless. I spent a ridiculous amount of time looking for solutions to these little problems and found absolutely nothing. Resetting keychains did nothing, reconfiguring any or all network settings did nothing, repairing permissions did nothing. It just didn't work and couldn't be fixed by any method I could find.

I subsequently redid the upgrades with the second method, Archive & Install, telling it to archive the system and users and leave network and printer settings behind. After pulling the user accounts back out of the archive folder (much easier than you are probably thinking), configuring the network settings and installing the latest printer drivers (also quite simple), everything has worked flawlessly henceforth.

I was leery of the "Upgrade" option before that, but now I am certain that it is a flawed process by its very nature. There is simply too much entropy in a modern operating system to be able to just overlay a new version on an older one piecemeal and expect it to work perfectly. Anyone who has been using computers for more than a few years should have already realized that the "Upgrade" method simply isn't a viable option if you want

Personal experience.

[Shivetya]

The only real issue I have, using a white 24" iMac, is I get periodic freezing of the whole system - no spinning rainbox CD either... its just locked. Bizarre as it sounds, its the UI that is locked. By that I mean I was just fine on Skype - just could not do anything with the keyboard or programs, the mouse moved but could not activate anything.

Still the whole upgrade has been mostly ho hum. As in, for a hundred bucks I would have expected something really outstanding here (and no time machine isn't)

Re:Personal experience.

[arminw]

.......As in, for a hundred bucks I would have expected something really outstanding here......

You could have carefully studied Apple's website before 10.5 came out and maybe learned that it wasn't up to your demands. I had bought a new Macbook three weeks before and Apple sent me a 10.5 disk for $9.95 postage and handling. I have had no problems with it at all. I did an erase and install, since i had not had much time to set up a lot of extra stuff on it yet. The Finder is faster and the system found the other systems, including Windows and the network printer. So far "It just works" for me.

Re:Personal experience.

[MrPerfekt]

I experienced this exact thing while I was using the developer ZFS r/w kernel extension.

I stopped using ZFS on Leopard and voila freezes stopped.

Re:Personal experience.

[NiteShaed]

Bizarre as it sounds, its the UI that is locked

This has been happening to me as well on my MacBook Pro running Tiger, and it's annoying as hell. In my case, it seems to be heat related, and it only seems to happen when the processor is under a pretty heavy load. I've found some comments from people with similar experiences, but no actual, or at least definite, fixes yet. The one thing that helped somewhat in my case was adding a fan control app and having the fans kick in sooner and faster than normal, but it's still happening sometimes.

Re:Personal experience.

[Jay L]

The only real issue I have, using a white 24" iMac

Oooooohhh, now it's a RACIAL thing! Typical.

Re:Leopard is quite like Vista (my own experiences

[Guy Harris]

X11 window styling does not match the rest of the OS

If you mean "X11 apps don't look like Aqua apps", then

1. that's not new in Leopard;
2. that might be the fault of Apple legal as much as Apple engineering :-) (i.e., if some X11 toolkit looked like Aqua, Apple's lawyers might go after them; perhaps Apple could develop and supply Aqua-style themes for the X11 versions of Qt and GTK+, but whether that's worth Apple's while is another matter - and whether they'd have to supply the source, and thus allow an Aqua style on non-Macs, is another matter, given that Qt is GPLed and GTK+ is LGPLed)

I am just this one guy

[Britz]

And I never had a problem with Vista. Come to think of it. Those other people reporting problems with Vista are just single people.

Slashdot should really get an "Apple Fanboy Comment" mod. It's been getting seriously worse.

OT: CSS/Tables

[TheRealSync]

Agreed - CSS is for layout, but tables are not obsolete; tables are still extremely useful for data.

Switch to Xubuntu

[Colin Smith]

Get rid of compiz, put metacity back in. Run XFCE rather than Gnome and you have a light usable desktop...

The Window List works as expected, the behavior in Gnome is a bit odd. Wireless does work though NetworkManager is not as reliable as init. Lets see, the only complaint I have with XFCE is that I can't change the amount of text available on desktop icons, long file names are truncated to about 20 chars. Oh and I can't be bothered figuring out how to get an OpenOffice icon for odt files.

Oh and cool feature. The pager remembers where applications were running when you log back in. That's a killer feature Gnome doesn't get right.

It just works, gets out of the way and seems to be saving me about 100Mb on RAM overall.

Re:Switch to Xubuntu

[Daengbo]

I'm not a new Linux user. I've used Gnome with Ubuntu, Red Hat and LinuxTLE, XFCE on Xubuntu, KDE on Mandrake and Kubuntu, Rox and IceWM over a thin client network on a limited server, and even WindowMaker quite a few years ago.

I don't have any problems with app speed, especially on the new computer I just got. Memory is just fine. In fact, I love my desktop, but there were a lot of opportunities that were missed because EASY bugs were introduced then weren't fixed or known non-working conditions were shipped.

Rant on Apple.....

[Shadowmist]

...... and get a headline post in Slashdot.

Profit!

You're not an average computer user

[Colin Smith]

I'm not trying to crap on your parade, it just seems like ever since the .com boom people have been saying it more and more and I just don't see it as being a good idea. The very fact that you're reading this page tells me that.

You and I are outnumbered by people like our aunts, their friends, brothers, mothers our friends who find computers to be a form of black magic. I am quite happy for them to use a thin client. In fact, I encourage it.

Ultimately it'll happen, you'll see it more and more as bandwidth increases.

If that's the only things your complaining about..

[endunn]

Complaining about eye candy on the Leopard obviously places you in the non-user category of Mac's. I have both Windoze Vista and Mac OSX 10.5.1. Leopard is still far superior and Vista is far inferior. While Leopard may have crashed multi-times... so did my Vista machine. So maybe we agree on some points. One point you are dead wrong on is Time-Machine for Leopard. Ease of set up and use was just that... easy... as well as, I keep forgetting it's running in the background until I see my backup HD start glowing and doing it's job. You never mentioned some of the more important things about Leopard and it seems your sour notes are just due to lack of knowledge.

Re:I don't think this guy has used Leopard or Vist

[Phroggy]

After years of trying Microsoft has successfully destroyed Windows Explorer. It doesn't update directory contents regularly. It doesn't have a "up one directory" button. Um, have you seen Vista's address bar? There's no up button, because you can just click on the name of the enclosing folder, or the folder above that, going up as far as you need. You can even click the triangle button thing to get a drop-down menu of subfolders. Yes, if you're used to using an up button all the time, I can see how you'd miss it, but the new way really is better, once you get used to it.

Kernel Panics

[LKM]

The OS just grays out my desktop and pops up a dialog box telling me I've got to reboot. Like the whole thing is my fault. I even snapped a picture of it. After all, I HAD PLENTY OF CHANCES!'

That's a kernel panic. There's something seriously wrong with his system if he has six kernel panics since Leopard arrived. I doubt his experience mirrors that of other Leopard users.

Re:Kernel Panics

[myz24]

I removed Leopard because of some different issues, but while I had it installed, my system would panic on shutdown nearly every time. When I started it up, there was a crash dialog and it told me what was causing the crash. I removed the offending item and it never crashed again. I would bet that most people who are having problems with kernel panics have some kind of add on that is no longer compatible.

repair disk permissions

[wiredog]

Is that like opening the Terminal and doing chmod and chown? I went from Linux to Mac and find that I just go to the command line when the gui is less than obvious.

Human voice or not.

[Shivetya]

I remember a cute little survey they did when Atlanta's airport had been renovated heavily in the late 70s. The trams would tell people to "this train is leaving the station", "move away from the doors" etc... they tried a male voice, a female voice, and finally a mechanical voice - eerily like a Cylon.

People responded much better to the last. I think they reverted to a female voice during the Olympics.

For some applications I think people need and expect a non-human sounding option. For many of us geeks its "cool" too. Now for having books read to me a good voice actor cannot be beat, but for text on the fly - I want it fast and accurately pronounced. If that requires a "mechanical" style voice then so be it, though hearing 6 speak might be all anyone needs :)

Re:Human voice or not.

[sammy baby]

they tried a male voice, a female voice, and finally a mechanical voice - eerily like a Cylon.

"Please move away from the doors." *woow woow. woow woow*

"By your command."

Price?

[Cigarra]

Just out of curiosity: please disclose the price tag for the li'l beast :-)

Re:Price?

[JCSoRocks]

I bought most of the parts from NewEgg. I already had my two 20" flat panels but I bought everything else for the machine - case, PSU, mobo, video cards, etc, etc. It came to around $2500.

All new OSes have problems, but Vista still sucks.

[NPN_Transistor]

New operating systems, be it new versions of OS X, Windows, or Linux, often experience instability/compatibility problems/etc. Why Leopard isn't the new Vista is because Leopard actually has significant new features, while Vista offers little that is actually useful/isn't easily available for XP as third-party add-ons/copied from other OSes.

apple want to be microsoft

[methuselah]

There is an axiom that goes along the lines of any multipurpose tool doesn't do any one thing well. That is why microsoft's products are so sketchy. Now apple wants to own the universe with itunes ipods and silly little phone thingys. It is unreasonable of you fanboys to expect them to concentrate on their computers and such when there are so many other things for them to worry about. Nothing destroys quality in the the computer biz faster than success....

Calling Bullsh*t

[Anonymous Coward]

The piece is utter crap and the system in question has other issues not related to Leopard.

And why is it that every other Mac post has a "haha" tag? Nothing like pointing out that slashdot is indeed run by a pack of rabid 5 year olds.

Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the real world that's called common sense, and it's not something that slashdot will reward you for. I'd mod you up if I could (and I'm sure it would p*ss off all the Bill Gates fanbouys that camp out here).

wow...

[iRegister]

What a piece of flamebait.
He doesn't give a single explanation of what was causing the crashes.
It could have been the non-Leopard ready kernel extension app Application Enhancer. Of course, some applications that weren't written for Leopard won't run on Leopard.

Bumpy at first, but good after first patch

[Arcturax]

Ok, I have a dual 1.25 ghz G4 (1.5 gb ram) and I had some rather upsetting behavior when I first got the thing. Main thing was that the whole system would just stop, totally frozen from about 1-2 minutes. I also saw my first Kernel Panic in over 2 years 10 minutes after a clean install. Another issue was when Firefox would beachball, it would beachball any other application that had a text box in it at the same time, which was enormously frustrating. Then there was the whole moving could lose files thing. I was very glad I had backed my stuff up to DVD before the upgrade.

But 10.5.1 fixed all of those problems and I've only had a few small nagging ones or annoyances (I really hate stacks and wish I could turn it off for one). Now my system actually seems FASTER than when I had Tiger. The finder in particular is a lot snappier and my machine, while still not as noticably snappy as a new Intel based mac, is still snappy enough friends of mine have refused to believe the machine is 5 years old until I proved it to them. Then they were quite impressed!

The remaining problems I have seem to be application related. Some things like MT newswatcher lock up after I post, or freeze in inconvenient places. I had a copy of some open source software that was screwing up this way (I had downloaded the binary) but when I pulled down the source and recompiled it, it worked just fine, so I suspect that a lot of application problems are because the developers have not yet recompiled using the latest XCode for Leopard. While you shouldn't see that kind of incompatibility often in my opinion, given the radical changes Apple made to the OS and pulling out all vestiges of Classic, I can see maybe why some carbon apps in particular might need a recompiling to keep them from having issues.

I am sure there are more bugs to be squashed, but I think Apple will get them in time. 10.5.1 came pretty fast on the heels of the release and 10.5.2 is probably going to hit next month and kill the next batch and maybe the one after. By about 10.5.3 or so, I suspect things will be back more or less to the stability we had with Tiger. So give Apple a break, there was a lot of rewiring going on in Leopard, way more than you can see just by looking at the eye candy and Time Machine. It will take a bit of time to get everything perfectly smooth again.

You need to learn more about WCAG and 508

[beetle496]

The problem with the government accessibility guidelines is that it sets developers back 10 years in what we can do, and still the webpage will operate very poorly to blind users.

That is just wrong. Screen reading software sees the web much the same way Google does. Webpages that operate very poorly for the blind have much in common with the subtle things holding the web back from reaching its true potential. Ever here of the Semantic Web?

Using Lynx, and command line OS's usually give them the best interface.

Actually, the average blind user appreciates the consistant user interface elements from application to application, and functionality that is easily discoverable by exploring menus. Huh, just like the average sighted user!

I had to write an intranet program for a government agency there is one blind person in the agency.

Make no mistake about it, 508 is Civil Rights legislation. More than accomodation, the point is to prevent lazy developers from creating new barriers that would work against hiring employees with disabilities in the future. And who is to say that an administrative assistant, who happens to be blind, should not be able to make those car reservations? Here is an Introduction to Web Accessibility.

Re:Leopard is quite like Vista (my own experiences

[MyDixieWrecked]

no, X11 apps are "aqua" they're just Tiger's Aqua and not leopards. They're not quite the same colors as the rest of the OS. In Tiger, they matched perfectly and you'd only know that they weren't native OSX apps by the fact that toolkits like GTK don't properly reproduce the same kind of spacing you see in aqua apps.

have you used X11 in OSX? Apple has their own windowmanager that's installed by default called "aquawm" that not only gives the apps the aqua look and feel but also allows you to minimize them to the dock and whatnot.

3rd party X11 (e.g. installed through fink) get the standard twm styling unless you install your own wm like blackbox, or kde.

Leopard's not perfect, but ...

[Jobe_br]

Been running Leopard seeds since ~6 wks before release, installed Leopard GM the day after release. MacBook (pre-November rev) and no crashes. My biggest beef has been the lack of Airport Disk mounting that was provided in Tiger. But, reading through the discussion forums on Apple, and you can find workarounds to get the one CoreService from Tiger's Airport Disk and it runs like a charm in Leopard.

Even being a Java developer and not having Java 6 on Leopard (yet), this still doesn't come close to Vista. Literally, I've seen 0 productivity loss, and Quick Look/Time Machine has already paid dividends. Was able to use Time Machine to restore an accidentally overwritten mod_dav_svn.so last night in /usr/libexec/apache2. That was sweet: realized I overwrote mod_dav_svn.so with a non-64 bit compiled version, navigated in Finder to /usr/libexec/apache2 (cmd+G), hit Time Machine, selected mod_dav_svn.so, hit the back arrow once, hit restore, provided credentials for restoring a system file, done. I *think* that all may have taken one minute.

Yeah, that's a productivity gain.

Re:Leopard is quite like Vista (my own experiences

[MyDixieWrecked]

I rarely use the fn key (mostly for adjusting the volume since the stupid keyboard backlight controls are on the same keys I use for expose and I'd rather just hit F9 than fn+F9 every time I want to use that feature), so I don't think that's it.

What happens is I will have safari windows open on 3 workspaces, for instance... I'll create a new window or minimize something in space 2 and spaces will fly to space 1, then fly back to my space 2. Or, I'll be in space 4, quit an app, and suddenly fly from space 2 to 1 to 3.

I haven't been able to reproduce it on queue, but the bug also frequently happens when I wake the machine from sleep.

"I even snapped a picture of it."

[objekt]

OK, where is it? I paged through the article, watched his video, and I never saw the picture.

When Vista is like Unix you will be right.

[Erris]

The problems of OS9 do not make Vista a modern or capable OS that has reached the 1993 design goals / marketing hype of NT. They still don't have adequate memory and process management, proper user separation, or a good network stack. This is mostly because they waste so much effort making things difficult for others to work with and the impossible task of digital restrictions. Sooner than later, M$ will be forced to use fresh BSD and or GNU/Linux code the way Apple did when they ate Next to make OSX. People expect more from an OS than M$ can deliver.

Re:When Vista is like Unix you will be right.

[willyhill]

The problems of OS9 do not make Vista a modern or capable OS

The fact that it's raining in Toronto right now doesn't influence the color of my shirt, either. Why then did you make the initial comparison?

has reached the 1993 design goals / marketing hype of NT.

Please point out where in that article there is a mention of a disconnect between design goals and what NT is doing today? And marketing hype, as well. If you link to something, it helps when it's relevant to the point you're trying to make.

They still don't have adequate memory and process management, proper user separation, or a good network stack.

That's ridiculous, NT has been doing that fairly well since 1993 and has been getting better since. The fact that you seem to hate it doesn't change reality one bit.

Sooner than later, M$ will be forced to use fresh BSD and or GNU/Linux code the way Apple did when they ate Next to make OSX.

That's a nice prediction, but I fail to see how that is relevant to anything here.

A mac crashes and suddenly Leopard is Vista?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anecdotal evidence at it's best (worst?).

Some guy's mac freezes and suddenly Leopard is Vista? Well, Vista, for one, is (a) 4 years delayed and (b) has most of the promised features cut (database filesystem? new dynamic shell?) and generally sucks donkey's balls. (a) and (b) are not anecdotal, are cold hard facts.

Furthermore, Vista has compatibility problems with older hardware as well as performance problems. These two have also been analyzed objectively. People are *known* to downgrade their PCs to XP. This is not anecdotal evidence: some pc manufactures even went as far as offering their PCs with XP again.

Sure, Leopard had it's share of bugs. Most of them are little things, like the obscure move-via-the-finder bug that existed since Panther and only ever affected a handful of people (and which is fixed in 10.5.1).

The most talked about problem, the infamous "blue screen" of Leopard, was clearly the user's fault, as they have used the unsupported and non recommended system hack that is APE. Some of them did so unknowingly, since some third party apps -like Logitech's mouse drivers- installed APE without asking.

Leopard has had glowing reviews from the most respected tech mags around the globe (including Ars Technica). The hit-and-run pieces are mostly opinion pieces, based on anecdotal evidence and overblowing one guys problems to something affecting every Leopard user.

The only *problem* with Leopard was that the "secret features" where lackluster, from and end user perspective. It does, however, represent a speedier, refined and more mature OS than Tiger with *significantly* revamped internals and development tools.

Here's a reply to a similar post complaining about Leopard's "bugginess".

Dumped my Vista Business x64 for

[bealzabobs_youruncle]

a Mac mini with Leopard. I can safely report there are NO similarities between Vista and Leopard, but there is a pretty clear similarity between this guy and Dvorak, both of whom work for PC Mag as contributors.

I guess I'm just a fanboi

[El Yanqui]

I have been using Macs since 1998 and would never go back to Windows. Over the years I've managed to convert my family because they were impressed with Apple's ease of use and stability. This Thanksgiving when I went home to the States, I installed Leopard on two Macbook Pros, one Mac Pro, an iMac and a Mac G5. Not a single hitch. Upon returning to London I installed Leopard on my Macbook Pro and Mac Pro and not a problem either. It's all anecdotal evidence. I've had no problems, some other people have had problems. That's quite a shock with a new operating system isn't it? I see many slashdotters who apparently are unfamiliar with OS and upgrading problems, so more power and good luck to them. I like Leopard. I like Leopard a lot.

Problems Should Be Expected

[Luscious868]

I had to be talked, wined, dined, and peer-pressured into buying my first MacBook Pro this past January.

Well therein lies the problem. When the author got his MacBook Pro in January, Tiger had been on the market for quite a while and Apple had plenty of time to work out the vast majority of the kinks. Problems in new operating systems, including Vista, should be expected. The old "wait for SP1" adage applied long before Windows and it's true for just about any piece of software. The bottom line is that no matter how much testing you do, the release version of software is sure to be installed on many more systems than a beta and there are sure to be problems that will be uncovered that weren't during the beta process.

If you want the best experience possible with a new OS, don't upgrade until it's been on the market for a while. Heck, I was told the same thing when I bought my first car. If it's a brand new model that's never been on the market before, wait until the second or third rev.

Flamebait

[Jack_of_Shadow]

Frankly, run Mac, win, and linux at home. I have had not one whit of trouble with Leopard, but did downgrade back to xp... I think this guy must be doing something extra kinky to get Leopard to crash... As I have lots of funky shit that I load into the mac and have had not one incident like he describes.

What would be cool

[HellProphet]

They should make a Red Screen of Death with the apple logo etched somewhere when the system tells you it has to reboot. It would gain them that much more popularity.

FUD, just plain FUD...

[Papa-Raboon]

I have upgraded all 5 of our Macs to Leopard and so far no Kernel Panics. Apart for some minor niggles and Safari unexpectedly quitting occasionally pre 10.5.1 My Leopard upgrade has been a great experience. Everything seems a little nicer. Quicklook is great. Stacks make great program launchers, the new finder is not perfect but a lot better, Time machine rocks, Mail is way better. Underlying stuff like Core animation make me drool when I think of the cool apps that will come out using it. However, I agree, Leopard is not perfect but compared to many of my friends experiences with Vista it's a dream. And it came out in 18 months rather than 5 years and most of it's issues are fixed already. What do you expect from Apple for god sake? They are human beings with flaws like anyone but at least their motivation is to create the best products. All this rubbish about how hard it is for MS to support multiple configurations is pathetic. Apple also have to support legacy hardware within the same binary. They have to have their OS as a universal binary that will support Intel/PowerPC, 32 Bit and 64 bit all native. They have also delivered new core technologies for developers to take advantage of and achieved UNIX 03 certification. Microsoft just want to stop you from pirating their stuff and are kissing up to media vendors by building in DRM to the core of their OS. They give you 32 bit versions of Vista and separate 64 bit versions. basically Microsoft deliver one OS for each processor configuration. Not very clever in my opinion! Apple also have third party hardware to think about. Peripherals for one, 3rd party video cards, different memory manufacturers and types, different hard drive manufacturers etc etc. You can also buy 3rd party ethernet cards to fit in Mac Pros. The only thing Apple don't have to support is 3rd party motherboards but I am sure that most motherboards are virtually the same on PC's they can't be that different surely!!! As for Mac bashing and Linux bashing for that matter well it's people that bash these vendors with lower market share than Micro$oft that truly need to think about what they are saying. It's these thoughtless people that are and have been holding back the progress of computer technology and the internet for years by supporting a monopoly. If Windows, OS X and Linux all had similar market shares we would finally see a ton of innovation from the computer OS competitors. We see it in Processor manufacturers, we see it in computer hardware makers but within the OS industry In reality we see innovation from Apple, we see it from Linux vendors but we don't really see it from Microsoft. Why? because they have their virtual monopoly so why should they bother. What's in it for them? They already own the most desktop PC's. It's in the best interest of Windows users to increase Apple and Linux market share. Only then will they see true innovation from Microsoft for their personal choice of OS products. Why don't any of you Mac bashers think this way? You're so narrow minded!!!

I received a MacBook Pro for my birthday

[SocietyoftheFist]

It is my first Mac, I've had it for nearly a month now. The first thing I did when getting it was letting it update 10.4 and then I upgraded to 10.5 with the disc that came in the box. I have not had one crash since I received the machine. I run iWork, Microsoft Office 2004, Thunderbird, Firefox regularly and all run smoothly. Maybe I haven't taxed the machine enough in my brief time with it but I've found no problems. It seems like a lot of issues are coming from upgrades of machines that have been in use for a long time?

No problems for me

[foniksonik]

Gen1 Macbook Pro w/ a straight upgrade (not archive-install or clean install)

I run a variety of apps. Parallels DT2 w/ XP sp2, Adobe apps (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat, Flash IDE, Flash Encoder, Dreamweaver), Apple apps (Safari, Mail, iCal, Keynote, iLife07 pack), Firefox, Opera, Eclipse IDE w/ Websphere and Flex plugins, XAMPP web server pack

I open files directly off a Samba file server running on Ubuntu Linux - large 200MB InDesign files w/ 100s of imported files in them (word docs, images, photoshop docs, pdfs, illustrator files, excel docs) make edits, save... all while encoding flash video from 1GB MPEG2 files, reading tutorials in Safari 3, hand coding actionscript in BBedit over an FTP connection to a server in New York (I'm in CA) and working on a Sharepoint 2007 website via IE7 in XP on Parallels.

Yes I have a 30 in. ACDisplay and my laptop screen, I'd soon have a seizure from tabbing through apps continuously otherwise.

The only thing I haven't done yet is turn on Spaces for Leopard. It was buggy the first time I ran it and I haven't had time to try it again after the 10.5.1 update.

I did once get a beachball cursor when I opened a large corrupted video file in VLC. I force quit it and re-copied the file from the server... opened again, no problems.

Just my anecdotal review.

RAM, not OS

[skia]

Given that what you're seeing is a KERNEL panic, I think it much more likely that you have broken/cheep/generic RAM in your machine. In my life as a Genius, 90% of all KPs we saw could be fixed by swapping RAM with known-good chips. As to why this started with Leopard? There's also a history of new big cats being more demanding of quality RAM than older versions. 10.2->10.3 and 10.3->10.4 both saw an increase in units people brought in suffering from KPs. The solution? See above.

No problems with Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't had any issues with the new Leopard out-of-box. The only problem I ran into was when I was updating my ruby gems ... the gem repository path gets blown away and you have to tweak it to point back to the Ruby framework. Other than that everything has been working great.

I do admit though I did a clean install. I copied all my data over to an external HD, then did a clean install of Leopard, then moved my data files back over and reinstalled my apps. I never trust any OS upgrade to be stable unless I do a clean install -- maybe it's a hold-over behavior from my Windows days.

He isnt talking to you.

[Anonymous Coward]

His audience is large. Largely MS users. And has no comprehension about OS complications other than their own. Theirs own being MS.

So he also has no issue to report such 'problems' accurately. Even if those problems affect Vista more than Leopard.

But if I were to be a paid shill or just a shill, would I care? No. Infact I know most of those I am speaking to know little of /. (or other sites) where some analysis of his observations (against Leopard) might get attacked. I know that most of my audience is largely computer illiterate and will listen to whatever I say. So to pull off something like this, I could just read the most recent Mac fanboi site issues with Leopard and develop my own story (based upon such) to an audience who will likely not have a mac to test it from (at any perspective I need worry). Seems real enough to sustain fire.

He isnt speaking to you here. He is speaking to those who are already (largely) his sheep. At least IMHO. And those who have no idea how to evaluate his perspective.

You can turn it off

[SuperKendall]

The transparent menubar is just awful and there's not even a way to turn it off.

Yes you can, with Terminal and "defaults write".

As I don't have the space for a full machine backup I didn't touch Time Machine yet.

Why not set up TM and exclude the System and Application folder?

Re:You can turn it off

[Jesus_666]

As for the menubar: Someone else gave me the tip, too. Half-good, but not quite perfect (perfection would be a System Preferences setting).

As for excluding TM directories: I never got to the point where I could. Since TM doesn't display the options button until you have given it a volume it can backup to I assumed that there were no such optinons, not having given TM one, since I assumed that it'd want to backup everything. Vicious circle.

2 things I don't see as 'minor'

[Lysol]

First off, I've owned a shitload of Apple hardware over the years. I'm not a fanboy, definitely an early adopter and I appreciate their industrial design, which is why I don't buy vanilla boxes anymore.

However, I'm pretty pissed with Leopard. Two things that unbelievably piss me off on my $3k+ MacBook Pro:

1. The fucking wireless STILL cannot find my Airport Express after waking from sleep. This is shit I'd expect from Linux circa 2003 (which did used to happen to me). Word on the street is that the wireless driver crashes and in order to find my base station, which is usually no more than 8' away from me, I have to turn off Airport and then back on again. Totally lame and unacceptable.

2. My keyboard freezes. The only way to unfreeze it is either to reboot or close the lid and sleep. This is beyond lame and total bullshit. Makes me wanna throw my laptop out the window.

Oh and I hate Spaces. Complete garbage and of course it doesn't conform to how I WANT to work, I have to conform to it - lame. I'm trying to compile/fix DesktopManager to no avail. Sigh. In my opinion, this is where X ruled.

Oh and when I upgraded my Mini media comp, the upgrade crashed, wouldn't allow me to re-install (it kept the little spinner going forever) and the only way I could get back on track was to pull the hard drive and then reboot form the cd. My friends MBP (used to be my 1st gen MBP) crashes on him almost every day after Leopard updating.

I was an avid Linux user for over 10 years and WindowMaker was my deal. But I hate Gnome and its cartoon-like interface (and the fact that it's being invaded by C# turns me off even more). I hate compiling my kernel, apps, etc like I used to with Gentoo. I do miss REAL window activation follows mouse. I do use Linux on all my servers tho cuz 'it just works' and f-ing works well. Every year I try the Linux desktop again and every year I delete that VM.

Windows, never. Besides cartoon-ish interface, everything is backwards and forces me to work in ways worse than OS X. Their command prompt sux (even Vista) and I spend a good portion of my day with terms open.

So, yay, I have a full 64-bit OS without having to buy the explicitly named 64-bit version. And some nice eye candy which I do appreciate. But I call bullshit on Apple (even after being a user for 6+ years now). If the Airport issue and the keyboard thing weren't there, then I wouldn't have much to complain about - besides Spaces. These may seem 'minor' offenses, but they're definitely a chink in Apple's armor as far as I'm concerned. Apple will probably fix these things faster than M$ would, but they're gonna heap a ton of denial and arrogance on the whole process as well.

My first Apple computer runs Vista.

[eightbithero]

In a building dominated by Dell, my shiny new 24" iMac gets a lot of attention. This is my first Apple computer.

Everyone thinks it's great until they look closely at the screen and see Microsoft Vista. They all ask why I'm running an unstable, buggy operating system on an Apple. It's like I'm defying God and his subjects secretly wish to stone me.

I tell them that I'm running Vista because it's not an unstable, buggy operation system. I tell them that I'm scared that Apple might break my Vista partition with an upgrade. Which would shut me down at work and all hell would break loose. Or that I can't stand how the fonts are so fuzzy. Or that I can't stop the pointer from going into that weird slow motion mode when I slow down the mouse. Or that Safari displays most of the text on the web in double bold. Then we have the featureless Quick time that constantly crashes and that I have to use a free player (Video Lan) to see everything.

This "think different" operating system is not superior it's just plain different. Fans on both sides need to get a clue.

Isolated Incidents

[fauxhammer]

I work in an apple authorized retailer. We've sold hundreds of Leopard copies. The vast majority of the feedback we've had from customers has been positive. The complaints we have had are almost all related to broken third party apps, usually people using older stuff like Photoshop 7.0. I myself have had no problems with it on any of my machines. Setting aside some of the dumber UI "innovations" like stacks, I've found little to complain about and a lot to like.

Upgrade versus Clean Install

[Anonymous Coward]

These kinds ofissues sound typical of an application or OS upgrade.

I bet it works fine on a clean install (i.e. the QA environment)

Firefox is a classic example of this, I never upgrade it, I always wipe (profiles and all) and clean install and never run into any of the bugs or issues that everyone else sees.

I have never upgraded an operating system to a new version, the odds are very slim that everything will work properly.

Here is how to upgrade an operating system properly and reliably:

1) Back up all your data files
2) Back up config files (for reference only - do not re-use)
3) Wipe the disk/partition completely.
4) Install new OS.
5) Re-install applications (do not restore from backup).
6) Re-create configuration files. (do not reuse old ones).
7) Restore only the data/document files you need (being aware that formats may have changed subtly)

Quality assurance for all upgrade paths of an OS is a gargantuan task and probably impossible (I doubt anyone actually does it). Use the tested configuration: a clean install - and you will always get better results. Don't be lazy, the extra effort is always worth it.

Security patches I can accept, operating system upgrades (without a clean install) are pure insanity. I don't think very many people understand this.

I have not used Leopard yet, but I bet a clean install will work much better. (Perhaps it will even be capable of mounting a floppy?)

All is well

[ThomsonX]

I don;t know what the big deal is. I'm running Vista on my PC and leopard on my Mac pro, and i've never had an issue. I blame the users.

The brilliance of Time Machine

[zonex]

From the perspective of someone who switched to a Mac very recently, but has been a software dev for a long time:

The brilliance of Time Machine isn't really the backup component. I am sure other backup systems could be/are better or smarter. More on this later.

The real genius is in the restore. You can visualize the backup timeline, search it, and see your files in their native application like Finder or iPhoto. Nothing else out there compares with this. Imagine being able to open up Windows Explorer and tell it to show what the contents of that folder looked like on a specific date -- all the while never leaving your folder window.

Another important point people miss about the backups is that the backups are in plain file system format. If my computer is hosed, I can connect my backup drive to another mac or even a Linux box, and very easily retrieve the files I need simply by copying them over. No restore software needed.

Not as reliable as Tiger! Stop the Presses!

[tgibbs]

So his number one criticism is that the initial release of Leopard is not as stable as his mature version of Tiger. Stop the presses! Who could possibly have anticipated that? Yes, this is indeed a similarity to Vista--and every other major update of every other software package in history. Most people know the adage--if reliability is more important to you than new features, wait for the 2nd, or even the 3rd update to a major revision before making the transition (although to be fair, I've had only one crash of Leopard since I installed it the week after release).

Another criticism is that the settings for the system backup feature Time Machine are in the System Settings. Stop the presses! Who could possibly have anticipated that? He also seems to be having some difficulty figuring out how Time Machine works, but I can't figure out why. He's also upset that Time Machine doesn't do block-level backups, to get around the fact that Microsoft's Entourage, unlike Apple's software, stuffs everything into a single, corruption-prone file, making normal file-level incremental backups (by Time Machine or by the Retrospect software that he praises) impractical.

Pretty much a waste. The few valid criticisms, such as the changes to the dock, or the fact that Time Machine does not yet support network drives as Apple originally planned, have already been chewed over extensively by pretty much everybody else.

Dictate by force superior architecture

[dmsete]

The only way to force thin-clients architecture is to convince management to dictate the use of thin-clients and not considering the end-users (idiotic) point-of-view. The gains of thin-clients in organizations are tremendous, I high-light two: Costs Savings & Security.

It's like that, but not the same

[dedazo]

The problems of OS9 do not make Vista a modern or capable OS

"Vista is like OS 9, LOLOL"
"No, it's not. OS 9 didn't even manage memory correctly"
"The problems with OS 9 don't make Vista better"

Good job twitter, it's not every day I get to see someone shoot down their own strawman.

Leopard?

[Stacks]

Leopard? Sounds like it's full of bugs. Back to NT 4.0.

I was going to hold off on Leapord, but...

[C. Alan]

it seems that I am the family computer support guy. Last year I finally moved my 73 year old father off his failing xp box, and convinced him to buy an Imac. I have been using a 20" Imac for more than a year since I retired my last XP box. Being that my Dad is 73, there were certain windows programs that he had to have. I didn't argue with him, I just installed Parallels, and let him go about things 'his' way. My Dad lives a couple of miles from my place, but it still was a bit of a pain to have to go over to his place ever time Parallels locked up. He still inisist on suspending the virtual machine ever time he wants out of parallels, and I have not been able to convice him that he has to 'turn off' the virtual machine.

So when I heard that Leapord was going to feature screen sharing, I convinced my Dad it was time to upgrade. In the last month, it has saved me three trips over to his place when he needed support. I only wish Apple had included screen sharing sooner. I know there was a pay version, but IMO, apple should have gotten on the remote desktop band wagon long ago. That is something that MS has really outdone Apple on.

So after a month with both of our machines on Leapord, I can say both computers are pretty stable. There have been no kernnel panics, and time machine is working out well on both machines.

In my house, we still have a lap top running XP, and I run a LAMP server on Fendora. The main printer in the house is hooked up to my Imac, and print sharing has been pretty painless using Bonjour on the XP laptop. I am SMB on my fendora server, and I have noticed that Leapord does not drop the connection like Tiger used to.

I will have to admit, my Fedora server puts both my Imac and my XP box to shame for its stability. I run a web server, a weather station server, a samba server all on the same box with fendora. That box literally goes months without having to be touched. I get an email from it every with its system status, and I am impressed with how easy it was to set up and maintain.

There's a nuance missing

[Stu Charlton]

I generally find that most communities are very helpful with people that are having problems. Go to Macintouch.com, or to Ars, or Discussions.info.apple.com, or Daringfireball - there is plenty of Apple criticism, complaints, frustrations, and there's very little flaming. There's a lot of discussion of what might be done to make the experience better, fixed, whatever.

When there IS flaming is when condescending puff pieces try to generate anger and ad clicks.

The Mac community has been conditioned to deal with 20+ years of flaming their preferred choice as something that is imminently doomed. It takes a long while to unlearn that habit, especially when flaming on the Intarweb is the #2 sport after World of Warcraft. Not even the Linux community has to deal with that (The Mainstream Linux Desktop is perpetually "tomorrow", not "never"). The only analogy I could think of what the Mac community is like is the old Team OS/2.

three words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Archive and Install.

Solved all my Leopard problems.

Re:three words...

[Ilgaz]

Archive and Install.

Solved all my Leopard problems. Why are we losing all our Application installations, user settings to install a $139 operating system while free OS people can update major versions over the net, INSIDE the operating system?

When you pay for an operating system, you expect hassle free upgrade. Even Windows 95 did a great job upgrading from a 16bit DOS creature like Windows 3.1.

I have a better idea, Apple should "Archive" the people they hired past 2 years and "Install" people who have clue about commercial operating system upgrades/installs. I hope that guy/gal who missed the 10.2.8 shadow password creating method doesn't still work there.

Re:I don't think this guy has used Leopard or Vist

[level_headed_midwest]

It's very similar to Gnome's Nautilus file manager in this regard, and somewhat similar to how Finder works (although the buttons are much better than the gawdawful panes in Finder.)

Keyboard lang/app switching, where did you go?!

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most excruciating things with Leopard is that Apple apparently decided that removing support for keyboard language input switching done on a separate basis for each app is bad, and removed it.
To someone like me who will spend much time every day typing IM:s and emails in Swedish, but coding and using the shell in english, this is so annoying that I can't even find words derogatory enough to describe it. Why would you remove such a feature that is clearly so useful to so many people?

On another note, what is up with Apples extreme lack of good support for mounting network shares? Is it really just me who finds it horrible that I can mount smb-shared drives in both Windows and Linux very easy, and have them automounted when the system boots up with no hassle, but in Mac, the OS that 'just works', you can't even mount a smb share, all you can do is browse it?

Granted there is some bootup script hacks you can do to accomplish automounts, but it seems these have been invalidated in Leopard 10.5.1.

And still, I should not HAVE to manually hack stuff to do something so basic and simple as mounting a network share! Not on a brand new powerbook running a brand new version of OSX.

How sad

[Anonymous Coward]

that after the last few decades the general populace still rushes to get the latest "1.0" version of [applications/operating systems/etc.] then spends all of its time crying about how its buggy. I guess most of the general populace just can't learn the lesson of avoiding brand new things, operating systems in particular, until the second or third patch set has been released. I guess it gives them something to "blog" about and voice their discontent about how something that they thought would give them "l33t" status just makes their system inoperable........

Of course, it couldn't be anything they did, could it?

Not a problem here either

[Anonymous Coward]

But like with every other release, I keep a detailed log of issues I find, and report them to Apple. No OS is perfect, but the Leopard upgrade is the smoothest upgrade I've ever done. I've found a couple dozen small things, and there are some new wierdnesses with spaces - especially with 3rd party app window focus, but I'm happy all in all. Vista looks nice, and I dual boot XP, but I just don't see anything that Vista really brings to the table. Its not bad, but its not compelling over XP which is at least stable and functional.

Good 4 me

[CottonThePirate]

I installed leopard on opening night. It borked my hard drive right away requiring a clean install instead of an upgrade on my Macbook. I've had a few more apps crash than with Tiger, but that has seemed to lessen significantly with 10.5.1. I was able to upgrade fine on my powermac at work and other people I know haven't had issues. I haven't seen a grey screen of death in like a year. I'm not saying leopard is perfect, but it's no crash monster either in my experience.

Ubuntu this, Ubuntu that

[ToasterMonkey]

Wow, can we stop with all the Ubuntu plugs? It will NOT EEEEEVEEEEER replace the functionality of a Mac. Every damned article with anything bad to say about Macs winds of with three or four of you Ubuntu douche bags. Do you have no idea how far off from Mac OS X + Mac, Ubuntu + PC is? Not even f'ing CLOSE. Your shit might fly in some Windows bashing forums, but really, that's it. Windows veterans know what the platform's pros and cons are, and many have at least dabbled with a Linux distro by now. It might come as a surprise to you, but a good deal of new Mac users are IT professionals with a lot of experience with Windows (often Linux too).
There's a REASON we bought Macs, and running a free Windows replacement on cheap PC hardware again does NOT appeal. Sorry, "free Windows replacement" is a little harsh, but please understand. Linux on the desktop is far better (relatively speaking) positioned to replace Windows desktops than Macs. I don't think you can look a real Mac user in the face and tell them they should switch to a desktop PC running Ubuntu without wincing.

You may as well be in an car enthusiast forum trolling "Check out my Scion! I have SIX cup holders, eat that Lotus!"

Why Ubuntu anyway? Slashdot isn't plagued by Fedora or Debian trolls. I spent eight years with Red Hat/Fedora on my primary desktop, and not once do I recall some idiot even imply that a Linux desktop is viable as a Mac replacement. Now Ubuntu rolls in with a 3D window manager, users bragging about how little they need to use the command line, and a sickening level of hype. My Linux half cries. The culture that was unique to Linux not so long ago is so wasted now. It could be so much more than an attempt to be grannie's desktop OS. All the stuff that made Linux stand out is getting pushed aside for more cheesy Mac OS X/Windows knockoff features.

I've calmed down a bit now, and sorry if I offended anyone. This one is for the Ubuntu trolls..

Solaris is looking like a better Linux all the time. Eat that.

Mac Pro 3.0 Ghz NO REAL ISSUES

[shelterpaw]

I've had Leopard since launch day. I haven't had a crash or freeze. Parallels 2.0 works just fine and most if not all applications. Most of the people that I have problems, besides a few iMac hardware issues, have had odd third party utilities installed and did an upgrade without removing those utilities. Others have had hacked their system to no end to get some specialized setup. So, I'm not surprised some people are having issues and I believe they didn't use their head when upgrading.

I made a clone of my Tiger setup and then performed a clean install of leopard. I migrated all the applications, but no utilities or hacks. The system is running great and I like it much more than Tiger. I have had much better network performance as well. I haven't used Windows Vista and don't plan on it, so I can't comment on it.

Vistard can kiss my shiny Java ass...

[theolein]

I own 3 Macs, 1 Powerbook, 1 Macbook,1 intel Mac Mini. I have not and definitely won't be installing OS-We-Gave-The-Graphic-Designers-Free-Reign-X on any of my machines. I own and make my money from, amongst other things, Adobe CS3 apps and Java. Both do not work completely or properly with OSX 10.5. Adobe will be bringing out an upgrade for Acrobat sometime in 2008 (yay), and Apple might honestly, never actually update Java to 1.6 on OS X. There is an open source JDK 1.6 available now, from scratch to RC1 faster than Apple took to withdraw their horribly broken 1.6 RC. And this is what is making me seriously think of moving to Linux and Windows.

I like OSX, since it's (was, at least in 10.4) very robust. But Apple has one big problem on their hands that goes hand in hand with Steve Jobs and his ego: Whatever SJ thinks is cool and perfect (and trendy for n00bs) goes in (Leopard comes with Ruby on Rails, yay), whatever he thinks is no longer cool (even though literally millions of coders make their money with Java on the server and especially on handies, Google mail, maps and calendar all run just fine in Java on my 2 year old Sony-Ericsson) goes out. This leaves many people frustrated as hell, since it makes work like sitting on a violently rocking boat which might overturn at any time.

On top of this, Apple, in a very Microsoft-like move, killed off a perfectly working Bootcamp on OSX 10.4, forcing all the thousands of poor morons who have Windows in dual boot on their machines upgrade to Vistard and make Apple some extra cash. In addition, installing Windows on Vistard 10.5 Bootcamp is tricky, because if you delete the Vistard created partition and create your own with the Windows installer, the 10.5 Bootcamp no longer sees it. This wasn't the case with the Bootcamp in 10.4, so it must be a Steve Jobs doing a Steve Ballmer like thing and fucking over users to try and lock them in.

I'm personally quite glad that Linux is finally getting good to go. I'm beginning to think that Adobe could port its software to Linux and that they might even make enogh sales from people who are just too pissed off with the Redmond and Cupertino robber barons and their fanciful whims.

Re:Vistard can kiss my shiny Java ass...

[tknd]

It's funny because you describe something that I recently saw. I don't have a Mac, but my sister has a powerbook and upgraded to Leopard. She wanted some help with her website and had it all designed out in Illustrator. The quick way to make a site out of it was to make an imagemap but that required Photoshop. As soon as she opened Photoshop, it crashed. Sure, CS3 is Adobe software not Apple's but with all the fanfare and claims by Mac people I was expecting a pristine and awesome experience on OSX.

Another annoying thing I found was the stupid file browser or application browser thing. A third of the window is given to an itunes-like view of the program's icon with all the other programs stacked like a jukebox disc off to the sides. It was completely useless and only offered "bling". For a second I thought it was designed by Microsoft.

After that I was convinced. There is no such thing as a "perfect" computing experience--you know, like the "it just works" marketin...err...idea. Anyone that claims so is full of shit and/or trying to sell you something. There are only "better" computing experiences. I won't deny that Apple might have the best game in town or have better products than competitor "M", but people need to stop bending over to Jobs and friends. All you're doing is inflating their egos and it shows in their TV commercials.

Re:Vistard can kiss my shiny Java ass...

[Ilgaz]

I own 3 Macs, 1 Powerbook, 1 Macbook,1 intel Mac Mini. I have not and definitely won't be installing OS-We-Gave-The-Graphic-Designers-Free-Reign-X on any of my machines. I own and make my money from, amongst other things, Adobe CS3 apps and Java. Both do not work completely or properly with OSX 10.5. Adobe will be bringing out an upgrade for Acrobat sometime in 2008 (yay), and Apple might honestly, never actually update Java to 1.6 on OS X. There is an open source JDK 1.6 available now, from scratch to RC1 faster than Apple took to withdraw their horribly broken 1.6 RC. And this is what is making me seriously think of moving to Linux and Windows.

I like OSX, since it's (was, at least in 10.4) very robust. But Apple has one big problem on their hands that goes hand in hand with Steve Jobs and his ego: Whatever SJ thinks is cool and perfect (and trendy for n00bs) goes in (Leopard comes with Ruby on Rails, yay), whatever he thinks is no longer cool (even though literally millions of coders make their money with Java on the server and especially on handies, Google mail, maps and calendar all run just fine in Java on my 2 year old Sony-Ericsson) goes out. This leaves many people frustrated as hell, since it makes work like sitting on a violently rocking boat which might overturn at any time.

On top of this, Apple, in a very Microsoft-like move, killed off a perfectly working Bootcamp on OSX 10.4, forcing all the thousands of poor morons who have Windows in dual boot on their machines upgrade to Vistard and make Apple some extra cash. In addition, installing Windows on Vistard 10.5 Bootcamp is tricky, because if you delete the Vistard created partition and create your own with the Windows installer, the 10.5 Bootcamp no longer sees it. This wasn't the case with the Bootcamp in 10.4, so it must be a Steve Jobs doing a Steve Ballmer like thing and fucking over users to try and lock them in.

I'm personally quite glad that Linux is finally getting good to go. I'm beginning to think that Adobe could port its software to Linux and that they might even make enogh sales from people who are just too pissed off with the Redmond and Cupertino robber barons and their fanciful whims. Java issue is beyond end user IMHO.

Sun and IBM (for PPC/JIT) should sit together, make a schedule and roadmap and takeover Java from Apple. After MS got punished, Sun took over Java for Win32/64, the only issue left with Desktop Java is Apple themselves.

Apple should not be bothered with Java which they clearly hate from the start, especially client focused Java. They have already showed their stance against Java by not including J2ME on iPhone, de-facto programming language for mobile phones. iPhone is the ONLY device which doesn't have Java on that price range.

As a side note, Limewire which is coded entirely on Java never left Top 10 versiontracker OS X/MacOS downloads list. Vuze/Azureus is the top torrent downloading app for OS X. I am sure Apple sees that list too.

As a final and tragicomic note: If I installed Linux/PPC to my Quad G5 instead of Leopard, I would be running IBM Java 6 for PPC which is the final version along with a very good JIT Compiler.

Well maybe yours does?

[slashbart]

I've been using OS-X 10.2 til 10.4, and have never had it crash on me. Never!

I'm glad I read the article, because I'm now not going to upgrade any of my Macs for a while. I like my Macs because they just work, and like to keep them that way.

Bart

And Safari crashes more often than it used to also

[slashbart]

I've been noticing Safari crashing way more often than about a year ago. That application (2.0.4) definitely has not improved over time :-(

Bart

Stop suckin Jobs' dick you fuckin Mactard

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the idiotic fuck, Maczealot faggot

Nice Strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you get the straw?

If you'd spent any time in any Mac community site, you'd know that they fiercely attempt to help people with problems.

If you think Slashdot is a Mac community site, then PEBKAC.

You're dismissing valid points.

[MacDork]

a flashy new interface that sacrifices usability to look interesting; ... Leopard doesn't have any of those problems (aside from some that don't like the look of the Dock, which is easy to change).

Really, because I'm looking at the dock preferences right now, and I don't see any way to switch from the stupid pale blue glow on a pale grey background and go back to the nice, easy to see, black triangle. I also don't see any way to re-enable the menu that allows me to drill down into a folder's contents and open any file with one click & hold action. I've been able to drill down into my filesystem via a menu since I started with a System 7 Apple menu. This is the first time in my 10 year history of Mac use that I cannot open any arbitrary file on my file system with one click. Now all I get is a retarded spring loaded folder. That "feature" alone is the most time wasting, frustrating aspect of the whole OS. Apple deserves to be lampooned for this in every article about Leopard until they fix it.

The dude may be a Microsoft shill, but only a zealous fanboy would dismiss the fact that he made a good point there. Since you've gotten me started, let me air a couple other gripes with Leopard.

AirTunes via FrontRow. Just like the new dock, the new FrontRow is flashy and new, but less functional where it really counts. That's horrible, because my iPod HiFi is my stereo system. I used to play music on my HiFi via my HDTV/Tiger Mac Mini. They're connected via my Airport Express. All I needed to do was pick up my Apple remote when I got home, go into FrontRow and play music. Leopard's FrontRow doesn't do AirTunes. Either I must boot my laptop and wait a minute or two anytime I want to hear music or settle for the crappy TV speakers.... Fantastic. Something that once worked beautifully is now broken.

Also notable: the play bar and volume controls are just gone in column view previews. You're forced to use QuickLook and you can't adjust the volume on anything without adjusting the volume for the entire system. Also, without the fwd/rwd buttons, you can no longer control playback speed and direction with a control click. It was taken out of QuickTime player a long time ago... Now it's gone from Finder. If they take it out of the browser plugin, that will be completely lost functionality. [Speaking of browsers... I just discovered Safari doesn't accept a drag and drop .mov file on the dock. You have to open a Safari window and drop it into there.... At least OmniWeb "just works"]

I really hope Apple fixes these issues, because although there are a few must have features, Leopard is also a downgrade in a number of respects. They intentionally removed a lot of functionality to force new eye candy on me and I don't like it. If they don't fix these things in a pretty timely manner, I'll be much less likely to run out and immediately BUY the upgrade next time.

Apple sells hardware, not software

[aswang]

Just a nitpick: there really shouldn't be any significant hardware differences, considering that Apple makes all of the machines that run Leopard. Unless, of course, the guy is running on a Hackintosh.

terrible rant

[stewbacca]

if you must rent, get your facts straight! Quicklook is accessible by hitting the space bar. He rants against one of the best features because he can't find a space bar on his keyboard.

well, 1 month on my 10.5 upgrade and no issues

[gearloos]

After 30 days or so..give or take a couple days, I have yet to have any issues at all. I run Openoffice, Eye TV, World of Warcraft, Many unusual apps..Popcorn...Handbrake..etc...

Re:Leopard is quite like Vista (my own experiences

[Guy Harris]

have you used X11 in OSX?

Yes. As a core Wireshark developer, I use it quite a lot.

Apple has their own windowmanager that's installed by default called "aquawm"

Yes, I'm quite aware of that, but...

that not only gives the apps the aqua look and feel

...as a long-time user of X11-based desktops, I'm also quite aware that the window manager only affects title bars and the window border, not the look and feel provided by the toolkit an application uses; the window manager, for example, is not responsible for scrollbars, text boxes, drop-down lists/option menus, etc.

I.e., by "window styling" are you referring to the title bar and window border, or everything in the window?

Re: Nobody? Guess I am nobody then

[stewbacca]

interestingly enough, all three problems you gave are directly related to microsoft (ms mouse, running windows via bootcamp, and networking with a windows machine).

Roll out this again in 2009

[argent]

We get the same thing for every new release of every OS, we got it with Panther and Tiger as well and we'll have the same kinds of complaints when the next big cat rolls out. The question isn't whether there's problems with a dot-zero release, the question is what happens next? Well, Apple's had mixed results with that... they don't tend to go back on bad ideas like Dashboard or the Panther Finder or what sounds like an even more unpleasant Finder in Leopard, but they don't generally take a year and change to come out with the dot release to fix the actual bugs either.

The thing is, Apple's screwups are consistently different from Microsoft's screwups. Leopard's not like Vista, the big cat cage has a definitely distinct scent from the toxic waste dump.

"Just Works" my a$$!

[Chelloveck]

All I want to know is, where did this guy get a copy of Tiger that Just Works? Because the one I'm using on this here MacBook Pro sure tends to get mighty confused at times! Just this week I had to spend half a day recovering from corruption in the disk image I keep mounted for when I need a case-sensitive file system. This is supposed to be a journaled file system; it's not supposed to puke all over itself if it doesn't get unmounted cleanly! Though it wouldn't have been a problem if the whole machine hadn't hung, forcing me to do a hard power-down.

Just Works. Right. Pull the other one!

Re:Leopard is quite like Vista (my own experiences

[MyDixieWrecked]

I.e., by "window styling" are you referring to the title bar and window border, or everything in the window?

I was referring primarily to the titlebar and border in my original post.

My complaint is more that X11 does not seem to have moved forward with the rest of the system and has remained in the same state as it was in Tiger rather than adopting the new colorscheme of Leopard. X11 windows are darker when they're in the background than Leopard windows (making them seem to be active).

Leopard is worse: they have nobody to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Leopard is actually WORSE than Vista, because at least as far as Vista is concerned, a majority of problems are caused by really bad third party driver support (you know, just like what happened with Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP were released). The really sad thing is, Vista was in beta for what, two years? And it was also released to business customers two years ago. So one would THINK these non-MS entities could get their crap together... but obviously not.

But with Leopard... what's their excuse? Leopard only runs on Apple branded hardware. No third party support to worry about, because Apple has always been openly hostile to third party support in the first place.

So what's Apple's excuse? Did they have trouble acquiring computers to test it on? Was the hardware vendor giving them grief? Or is it simply... GASP!!!... that their programmers are horrible and couldn't program a stable app if their life depended on it? Perhaps they accidentally put some of the guys who program the Windows versions of Quicktime and iTunes into the Leopard group? Who knows, it could be anything!!

Probably the final nail in the coffin has been Apple ramping up their anti-Vista FUD, droning on about the ancient BSoD issue, etc... and it all comes right back to bite them right in the ass. They go from "Think Different" to "Leopard: it just doesn't work" within a few weeks, and become the laughingstock of the computer industry.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't desperately smash Windows.

Re:Leopard is quite like Vista (my own experiences

[Guy Harris]

My complaint is more that X11 does not seem to have moved forward with the rest of the system and has remained in the same state as it was in Tiger rather than adopting the new colorscheme of Leopard. X11 windows are darker when they're in the background than Leopard windows (making them seem to be active).

Does the latest Xquartz from http://www.x.org/wiki/XDarwin fix that?

OS EXs?

[fingers1122]

Anyone at least find it slightly ironic that the author of this article refers to the OS as "OS EXs" ? Something tells me this guy doesn't have a lot of Mac experience, as anyone who's even remotely paid attention to Apple within the past seven years know it's "OS TEN."

Re:OS EXs?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Anyone at least find it slightly ironic that the author of this article refers to the OS as "OS EXs" ?

Ironic? No.

Ignorant? Yes!

My exprience is the opposite

[eelke_klein]

I think Leopard is a great improvement over tiger. In the allmost one year 1 have used tiger it has crashed several times and was often unresponsive there actually was a time I thought I had made the wrong choice by switching to apple but I decided to give them one more change with Leopard. Well I am glad I did, I took the trouble of doing a clean install of Leopard to make sure any troubles I had with tiger wouldn't follow me to Leopard. Since I run Leopard I haven't had a single crash and it is in general much more responsive. With Tiger I always felt my the four cores of my Mac Pro were being held back but with Leopard they are really on the prowl.

Leopard isn't the new Vista (Firehose on PCmag)

[b.rudge]

Reblogged from http://drupal.geek.nz/node/48;

Oliver Rist 'reviewed' Mac OS X Leopard and his article was slashdotted.

Disclaimer

I'm writing this on my second MacBook Pro, in our house we also have MacBook white (My fiancee's), an iPod Shuffle, an Airport Extreme base station and an Airport Express with Airtunes. Although I wouldn't agree with you, it wouldn't surprise me if you took me for a JAFAF (Just Another Fucking Apple Fanboy). However I make an effort to keep a realistic view on Apple's products and if I felt that an open source operating system could enhance my workflow as much (or nearly as much) as Mac OS X, I would switch, but currently there isn't. I work on FLOSS all day every day -- that's my job, as a web and drupal developer and consultant.

Response

Oliver is clearly having a bitch in this article, and no doubt intentionally to aggravate JAFAFs and motivate discussion responses and click-throughs on the ads. Hence I won't give him or PC mag the pleasure of a long detailed approach, but merely attempt sieve out the parts inspired by T.O.M., and add my own $0.2; a realistic count of my Leopard experience to date.

"Apple turned a stable OS into a crash-happy glitz fest"

This is clearly a premenstrual hyperbole, proven by;

"A month of using Leopard with the same software I had under Tiger and the OS has dumped six times."

Back in the day when I ran pretend operating systems like those from that scummy vendor in a place near Seattle. The crappy thing crashed at least daily. That would be 'crash-happy'. Not you're slightly-more-than-weekly.

I guesstimate that Leopard has crashed or frozen about 8 to 12 times in the last 5 weeks since I installed it on October 26. Given the weight of use and the limits I take Leopard to, I consider this edging on acceptable, definitely not enough to go back to Tiger. Most of these times I got apple's designer-screen-of-death .

However, all of the applications I used on Tiger, also work on Leopard, and almost all without a glitch. (I don't count Apple's Safari 2, as this has clearly been disabled in Leopard at the call of management at apple and I'm confident that there's no technical reason why it couldn't run on Leopard.)

I repeat; All the applications I used on Tiger work on Leopard.

Komodo IDE had a few issues initially, but Komodo's update has smoothed that out. Parallels on Leopard needs some serious love. I believe it's the cause of at least half of the crashes. I think Skype, or the combination of skype with a bluetooth headset or bluetooth stereo headphones is another combination causing crashes and freezes.

I'd like to emphasize how impressive this is. Take a look at my dock; http://drupal.geek.nz/files/my%20dock.png

I use all but two of these applications daily;

1. Finder
2. Yummy FTP
3. iTerm
4. MAMP
5. Komodo IDE
6. TextMate
7. Stickies
8. TaskCoach
9. Netscape Navigator
10. Firefox 2
11. Firefox 3 beta 1
12. Adum
13. Xmeeting
14. Skype
15. iTunes
16. Activity Monitor

That's not my experience

[Nicolay77]

Right now I have 13 Apps loaded. Constantly using some of them. Using Dexpot to have 4 virtual desktops. This week I was loading the Crysis demo to see if my computer will handle it - yes it will. And that game looks awesome!

No I didn't close the 512MB Virtual Machine to load Crysis. It still worked.

My uptime is measured in weeks. And the only way to describe my usage patterns is can't you do anything else besides being at the computer?.

I don't use IE at all, only Opera. I don't install any Windows update because I trust my external firewall. I'm a Vista hater too.

Leopard forgets settings!

[novakreo]

No one else has mentioned this yet, so I'd like to know if I'm the only one experiencing this on Leopard (10.5.1):

Among other issues which have already been covered on /. and elsewhere, my MacBook Pro forgets settings quite frequently, sometimes only hours apart. I have to keep setting my default browser and feed reader back to Camino and Vienna, and that I prefer QuickTime to iTunes for playing audio files (since it doesn't automatically add it to the library). Does this happen to anyone else?

Just installed Leopard

[Ilgaz]

I have waited for a system update before installing Leopard and here is an example.

A game (small company,not naming) built on standard technologies like OpenGL/OpenAL which is natively OS X since the start. No Cider etc. crap.

Tiger 10.4.11: 60 fps
Leopard 10.5.1: 10-20 fps

This is what I see. I reported "performance issue" to Apple using their bug reporter and I will _insist_ until it gets fixed. Apple's issue is their fans. People spare too much time forgetting they are customers and defending Apple. I am basically a customer, family license owner of a new operating system. It performs badly, bug reported.

No crashes here?

[kainewynd2]

Umm... I have had a grand total of one crash... with Mac Mail. With the exception of the installer error due to third-party plugins, I have experienced nothing but stability. Additionally, I have heard of only one or two people who have had issues. If I wanted to be slashdotted, I should have bitched and moaned about Ubuntu when I was having kernel panics due to my attempt at compiling hfs+ drivers... oh wait, I found the problem instead of complaining. Macs come with a great log parsing tool called 'Console' for a reason... look at it and call AppleCare.

Dvorak has cubs

[CyberdogOSX]

To find out that Leopard is not Vista, read this stellar review by.....PC Magazine.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2207543,00.asp

Vista is a bear, and Leopard is the cub? Sounds more like John C. Dvorak is the bear, and this guy is his cub.

Strange, I've had no issues on my Macs.

[Script_God]

I have Powermac G4 Quicksilver and a MacBook (Late 2006), each running Leopard. I've had no more stability issues with Leopard than I have had with Tiger on either machine. In fact, the G4 has been running for fourteen and a half days as I use it to type this, without sleep. I use it as my web browsing/IRC/AIM/Email box when I'm at home. My Macbook isn't as fortunate as it does freeze up from time to time, but I run more aggressive things on it. It's no less stable than Tiger was. If anything it's more stable.

Just a load of FUD.

Not at all vicious

[SuperKendall]

You give TM a volume, then list whatever exclusions you want. You have all the time in the world to do so since you can simply have TM off after you define a volume. Why does it not make more sense to start by saying you want a particular volume for TM? For most people, that is the only option they will ever choose and therefore is the best thing to make dead simple without apparent options to confuse anyone. Those of us with more complex needs can easily then customize once the simpler aspect is set up. I mean, I knew you could do volume exclusions last year so anyone who has a need for exclusions or even understands the fundamental concept of exclusions, can easily figure that out quickly.

You are over-thinking things. TM is as simple as it gets.

Re:Not at all vicious

[Jesus_666]

There's a difference between eliminating uneccessary things and assuming that the user will be confused beyond help by having both a "select backup volume" and a "change settings" button in the UI. System Preferences is there to change settings, so I think it's fair to assume that when a preference pane doesn't show you settings and doesn't give you an obvious way to expose those settings there are, in fact, no settings to be made. The way the Time Machine pref pane is presented to the user upon visiting it for the first time strongly suggests that TM supports exactly two settings: Where to backup to and whether to backup at all.

Seriously, the whole "this button doesn't make sense to use if condition X is not met" thing has been figured out twenty years ago. They invented the concept of disabling widgets for that case and it has worked rather well.

Re:Not at all vicious

[SuperKendall]

The way the Time Machine pref pane is presented to the user upon visiting it for the first time strongly suggests that TM supports exactly two settings: Where to backup to and whether to backup at all.

Exactly, it presents the simple case for users that do not need to know more. Those that want exclusions know to expect them, look for them, and find them. Everyone wins.

Bringing up an overly complex dialog is a great way to make sure the people that most need to use TM would never do so.

Seriously, the whole "this button doesn't make sense to use if condition X is not met" thing has been figured out twenty years ago. They invented the concept of disabling widgets for that case and it has worked rather well.

Actually not, we've been stuck in a UI funk for about the last twenty years and are only slowly dragging ourselves out of the mire. Things have been figured out FOR COMPUTER PEOPLE. Not for normal people. That's what we are just starting to learn really.

Re:Not at all vicious

[Jesus_666]

You're seriously telling me that telling users "there are no options to set" is better than telling them "there are options, but you can't currently set them because of X"? It would've been trivial for Apple to grey out the "Options" button and put a text above it that says: "You can fine-tune Time Machine once you've set up a volume for it to back up to." That way truly everyone wins, unlike in the current scenario where only people who don't care about exclusions get told that indeed there is support for them.

Seriously, hiding stuff from the user is not user-friendly. In the real world stuff doesn't magicaly disappear just because you can't use it at the moment, however the concept of availability indicators should be well known to anyone who has ever been to a public restroom. And it's easier to memorize that a greyed-out button can't be used than memorizing when a certain element is or is not there on an app-by-app basis.
If you want to convey in a user-friendly way that something can not be used right now and a greyed-out button alone is deemed inadequate then tell them that (and why!) it can't be used right now instead of just hiding it.

Not giving even a hint that the object in question even exists is not user friendly; it first confuses users who are looking for it (as in my case) and later it might confuse them by suddenly appearing out of nowhere. The solution to clunky user interfaces is not to hide everything that is not absolutely vital to doing what you perceive to be the next logical step. The solution is to make sure that the UI is understandable; that involves not only avoiding completely unexpected things but also explaining what's going on. I'm absolutely positive that providing a small twenty-word blurb about why something is greyed out is much more user-frienly than hiding it from the users's eyes and hoping he doesn't notice.

Re:Not at all vicious

[SuperKendall]

Seriously, hiding stuff from the user is not user-friendly.

Yes it is, it's called a layered UI and is used all the time. And for some things meant to be used by a fixed user base it's a far better approach than cluttering a system with information users do not yet need.

As I keep telling you, technical users know the settings are there with minimal research, so the initial apparent lack of them is not an impediment to someone who is technically advanced enough to know they would like it.

The key design goal is simplicity for the beginning user, and for TM I agree that goal supersedes more advanced use cases.

Re:Not at all vicious

[Jesus_666]

I have no ssues with layered UIs. Layered UIs do convey the information that something else is there to be accessed.

As for TM, I guess it's not intended for users who are experienced enough to want partial backups but not research-inclined enough to read up on TM before accessing its pref pane. I rarely do read up on new OS X features before exploring them because until now I haven't seen a feature that wasn't easy to understand without documentation. I assumed that TM is no exception, which was wrong.

Re:Not at all vicious

[SuperKendall]

I have no ssues with layered UIs. Layered UIs do convey the information that something else is there to be accessed.

Sometimes they do, but TM is a case where it does not. Similarly (to my mind) the fact that OS X has many values which can be written using "defaults write" to customize the system in ways a GUI cannot touch are the same thing, and perfectly serviceable even though they are more arcane!

I rarely do read up on new OS X features before exploring them because until now I haven't seen a feature that wasn't easy to understand without documentation. I assumed that TM is no exception, which was wrong.

I would actually say that if you are a heavy user of complex backup needs, TM is not for you and you really want something like Retrospect of even Backup.app. TM comes from the approach of a whole-system backup that you chisel things from as opposed to every other backup app on the planet, which has you direct exactly what to back up even if it does help define large chunks of the backup space.

Once you approach it from the mindset of starting from "I am backing up my system" and then later realizing "Hey I don't want to back up this one thing", the layering makes perfect sense. It's on;y because your mind is expecting something from a "backup application" that you are confused.

Im running leopardd

[Trendkill_84]

and i have had one kernel panic which resulted in not being able to load the os again.

what was the cause you ask? faulty ram installed by the apple techs. i took it back to the store, they replaced the ram and it worked again, and they did all this work in front of me basically.

so in other words, the only time i've had a kernel panic is from faulty hardware.

The grey reboot window...

[NateTech]

Is a kernel panic, and you should be able to find the reason in the logs, unlike Windows. Apple's problem isn't in making systems easier to use, it's in attracting folks who won't ever think about looking at a Unix log file for clues.

Internet Connect.app is Missing

[SkimTony]

And that makes a big difference. I would certainly agree that the new Network pane is much more comprehensive and thorough than the old one, and it includes a lot of the functionality that used to be broken out into Internet Connect.app, but it doesn't include all of them, which means (for example) there's no longer a "Connect" button for connecting to 802.1x wireless networks. In fact there's no longer a Connect button for anything, which makes for a nightmare.

Under Tiger, I could configure the appropriate connection for our 802.1x-secured wireless network, and have users click "Connect" and "Disconnect" to control the connection. Now, it sort of connects, sometimes, when it feels like it, and it doesn't stay connected, or manage to maintain connections across Sleep/Wake cycles (previously the answer might have been "Oh, just disconnect and reconnect to the wireless with this giant blue button." Now, there's no simple way to reset that connection).

Re:Internet Connect.app is Missing

[Trillan]

I've always used Turn Airport Off/Turn Airport On for that.

Re:Internet Connect.app is Missing

[SkimTony]

I use that for a lot of AirPort connection issues, but turning AirPort back on doesn't explicitly initiate a connection to an 802.1x secured network. That's part of the steps to resolve the connection issues in Leopard, but it's not the whole thing.

Re: Nobody? Guess I am nobody then

[caution live frogs]

MS products? No, not really. The touchpad is Apple hardware, and it is acting screwy. The mouse is made by MS, sure - but a Kensington single-button USB mouse gives the same erratic behavior, so it is not specific to the MS hardware. (Note also that I pointed out the touchpad and mouse work just fine in Windows under BootCamp. The only time I have problems is when using OS X.) Finally, Boot Camp is an Apple product. Installation going from easy to use in beta to multiple failed attempts in the final version? How is that an MS problem? Having a hard drive partition not show up during boot? Given that MS didn't write the bootloader for the Mac, this is also not an MS product issue there. This isn't specifically an MS issue at all. This is an issue with Leopard shipping with some major issues.

Anyone else notice that disk images are not unmounting / ejecting properly in Leopard? Getting a bit tired of loading DiskUtility to force-unmount the darn things.