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

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?

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.

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: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!