Comments on: The steady advance of Mac OS X

With Leopard's arrival later today, Apple's delivered five major upgrades to Mac OS X in six years, showing that small morsels can be more satisfying than biting off more than you can chew.

[yaZULU]

WTF?

this is Cnet isnt it? this is a post apple related, wheres the war?

[jcolletta275]

Significant in terms of... what, exactly?

I have to say I agree with most of the article, but that last paragraph kind of catches me. I don't think it's fair to say Leopard is not as much a significant upgrade as Vista is from XP, and keep in mind that this is coming from a life-long Windows devotee.

Let's take a look at basic perception (because it is, indeed, reality in this world). Vista is incompatible with many older programs. PowerPC programs still run in Leopard... quite well, from what I've seen and heard. Try running NBA Live 98 on your new Vista box. Betcha can't. I couldn't even get it to run properly in XP, and this was only a few years after I bought the game. Now try running the old standby Oregon Trail on your new OS X box. Odds are you can play the game without any problems.

Vista promised us a new file system, better system performance, a sleek new look and improved file indexing and search capabilities based on the new file system. Of those four key improvements, Redmond only delivered on ONE of them. Leopard will ship with everything Cupertino promised would be in it, and knowing Apple's history, probably a bit more. And it will WORK. Try telling me you got everything you wanted out of Vista right out of the box. Even the more hard-core Windows fans will laugh in your face.

This is a trend, one that Microsoft ought to be worried about, because people such as myself are seeing it. We see how old and flawed their upgrade schedule is, and we see how Apple handles upgrades and delivers on their promises, even if the final product DOES come a bit late. Add to the mix the fact that Apple machines are now Intel-based and can run practically anything, and it's a bad sign for the reigning king.

Given all of those factors, I'd say the Leopard update is actually MORE significant than the difference between XP and Vista, and I have no doubt in my mind that Steve Jobs realizes that.

[drewjjones]

Good comment

I'm very much in agreement, J. Apple has done well working
with folks on older Macs. Rosetta, imperfect though I've read it
was for many people, did a solid job on my PowerPC software
while I waited for the universal binaries. I also like that my four-
year-old iBook is able to handle Leopard just fine.

I've got both OS X and Vista on my desktop. I hardly think Vista
to be a complete failure, -- the relative ease on the eyes, alone,
compared with XP is almost worth the money -- but Microsoft
could have, and should have, done a better job for its
customers. The compatibility problems are real and significant.
And it's also quite a hog, in my experience, chewing through a
pretty large amount of my processor and RAM.

An alright upgrade, but I think we're all right to expect better.

[Tom Krazit]

Look and feel?

You make some fair points about the compatibility problems and the system requirements, but Vista is hugely different from XP in terms of appearance, and I think the search function is better as well. Maybe not as good as Mac OS, but it's still a significant improvement over XP.

The thinking behind that sentence was that Win XP users are in for a very different experience when they upgrade to Vista. Tiger users are in for a different experience, but I don't think the magnitude is as great.

[Tui Pohutukawa]

Note to editor

That's some contradiction:

"Apple sits in a happy middle, where it can make substantial--
yet relatively modest--additions to Mac OS X"

Substantial--yet relatively modest..? As in big, but quite small?

Otherwise, this is a good article, since it is factually correct.
Keep it up.

[Mike Dartt]

Clarification

This initially gave me pause as well, but I think it makes more sense when contrasted with Microsoft's approach. The MacOS X releases are "substantial" in comparison to Windows Service Packs in that the former often adds significant new features, while the latter tends to be bug and security fixes. At the same time, MacOS X releases are "modest" in that they represent incremental changes to the previous release, versus Windows releases, which aim at being enormous improvements to previous incarnations from years ago.

[this1!]

look up the word relative

i think you'll be surprised that it was used correctly

[Tom Krazit]

As in big, but not too big

Significant changes, but not so overwhelming that it takes years to get out the door.

[SeizeCTRL]

5 major upgrades to Mac OS X in 6 years

What's that, $650 in OS upgrades? And I thought Vista was expensive!

How's Leopard going to be with games? Any publishers decided to actually code for OSX yet or they still proceeding to port games. That's my one big beef with OSX is it's lack of QUALITY games...

[MacVet]

$$$

How's that yearly A-V subscription price working out for Windoze users?

How about the anti-spyware?

How about the sheer cost in time for solving Windoze problems?

[ServerMonkey+FarmBoy]

Your worried about games?

You are worried about how it runs native with games when products like Boot Camp and Parallels make that concern laughable.

And yes, EA has stepped behind Apple, and has clearly stated that every major game they release from now on will be MAC compatible.

Not to mention that everything Blizzard has EVER produced all the way back to Warcraft One has been for the mac as well as the PC...

Please, define for us "Quality" games. EA and Blizzard make some of the highest rated games on the planet, so I would like to know your definition of "Quality"...

[afterhours]

be fair...

You need to include the price of both XP and Vista in your
calculations. XP ran me $299 in 2001 (I bought Pro). Note that
Apple doesn't water down their OS version with dumbed-down
consumer version vs. decent feature-rich 'Pro' or Ultimate
versions. Vista ran me $399 for the 'Business' version, as I
didn't need what the high end offered. So, my math says that is
$700. However, I couldn't run XP on the PC I had at the time, so
I had to buy a new one, more ram, and discovered that a whole
host of apps I was using didn't work. Let's leave the Apps alone
for a moment -- I needed new hardware to go with the software,
so that was a whole new machine, not the PC I bought in '99
(and not the cheeseball low-end sub $1k machines that always
get price-compared to Apple mid-level systems ). Vista would
have required another machine, but I run it on a G4 I bought 4
years ago.

Now, I work in both worlds. 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, Panther, Tiger and
Leopard have collected about $720 from me, according to
receipts. I was able to run 10.0-10.3 on the Mac I also bought
in '99. And, that same mac continued to run software I had
bought in '92 -- using both the Unix OS and the 'Classic' OS
simultaneously in the same environment. We bought a G4 (the
one noted above) just before 10.4 was released. It also can run
all of the software, including Classic, and the '92 apps. And it
can run everything INCLUDING Leopard, 'though Classic won't
run in Leopard. (I'll just keep the older 10.4/Classic stuff on the
old hard drive and get a spare 750 Gb drive for the Leopard
stuff. I'll be able to switch between the two simply by rebooting,
just as I do now between Vista and XP in Bootcamp and the 10.4
stuff.

Sure, I can use a newer Mac Mini with the Intel chips, but I can't
run my 15 yr old software on that machine. I guess that will be
pointed out as some kind of 'see -- there's a big drawback' from
the Windows-only types. But I can use Parallels and run Vista,
XP Pro, Win 2k, Win 98, and Ubuntu 7 as well as 10.4 or 10.5.
All on the same machine. All on the same hard drive. All on a
computer that cost $700 (including the 10.4 OS). I could do this
-- and I know this -- because I have this machine sitting here
on my desk, right next to the G4 and the stinkin' Dell I bought
because I had to for XP Pro.

When you talk about money, I listen. Both OS's have cost the
same over the 2001-2007 long haul. Within dollars, the same.
It's all the hardware costs that sticking to Windows does cost --
real money that never makes it into these Win-Mac flame wars

As for games, I use my computer for work. My Macs generate
money for me, running both Tiger and XP Pro. I have to see
Vista and Win2k for viewing tasks (programming, web work, etc.)
I don't game. I guess if I had that kind of disposable time, or
didn't run a business, or was skipping class, or would rather
game than spend time with my family, I would. To each their
own, but your economics argument is WRONG and you don't
really know what you are talking about, except perhaps with the
gaming. I'll give you that.

[Penguinisto]

only need one - or none.

[i]"What's that, $650 in OS upgrades? And I thought Vista was
expensive!"[/i]

I paid exactly $0.00 - OSX 10.3 came with my Mac, and I'm still
using it. There aren't very many apps that require anything
newer.

Meanwhile, how many DX-10 apps can you use on XP?

What's the min. requirements for Vista again? Because Leopard
can (at last check) run on a G3 with 512MB of RAM... a machine
typically sold in [i]2000[/i].

As for gaming? That's what my Linux box is for, though I can get
(and use) all of my particular favorite games on the Mac as well.

/P

[mhersh]

Games?

I'm sorry, but if all you're worried about is games, you don't
belong in this discussion. There's more to using a computer
than rotting your brain cells playing games all day. For anyone
who wants to do anything productive, Macs are the best choice.
Personally, I don't care if OS X has games or not. Even if they
never do, I can still run Windows on my Mac. It's not something
I'd like to do, but it can be done and done well. BioShock ran
perfectly on my MacBook Pro. Gamers just irritate the hell out of
me. Anyone who cheerleads for Microsoft is usually an ignorant
gamer. Anyways, I think it's an irrelevant point. As Mac OS X
gains more market share, as it currently is, developers will begin
to flock to it, as they currently are. Microsoft won't hold a
monopoly on gaming for much longer, at this rate. Even so, it's
not like it's a huge market to gain. Jobs ranked the gaming
market and it's not all that lucrative. Apple will take the more
valuable markets before it worries about niche markets like
gaming. Although, they will take small steps to improve their
image. In short, gamers = whiners.

[theveggiedude]

OS X is cheaper!!

At least Apple only releases one version when the time comes. Microsoft gives you half a dozen version of Windows to buy. So in 5 years, 6 versions of OS X. After a long 6 year wait, 6 versions of Vista!

Secondly, to install OS X onto 5 computers costs $199. How much does Microsoft charge you? :P

Thirdly, Apple doesn't have activation and pesky anti-piracy crap for you to go thru on installation.

[eldernorm]

Hmmm, trolling for MS $ are we???

Seize ctrl, (as in microsoft wants to seize control from you)

Actually you make a LOUD but misleading comment. I have used several OS X upgrades but that does not mean that I get every one.

I had 2.8 for my iBook, 3.0 for my G4, and 4.0 for my G5. When I bought 10.4, I upgraded all of my systems. When I get 10.5 I will upgrade the G4 and G5 systems. I only will have paid for two systems as the others came with the hardware.

See, I think you are thinking like a MS head. You must buy any thing the company sells, Ballmer says so.!!!! :-) With Apple, we only upgrade when and if it makes sense.

Just a thought. (PS consider buying a console for games instead of playing with your pc). When people tell me that its a must to buy a pc for gaming, I have to wonder which system is the "toy computer". ??? :-)

en

[notrylook]

buy vista, install it on your mac

OS X is not a big gaming platform. Stick with a PC or install
Windoze onto your Mac. That way you get 1.5 computers for the
price of 1!

[pilaa]

Right to an Extent...

You are not required to upgrade to the latest MacOS version. Apple will still provide service packs and updates within reason of your OS's release.

As far as Games, VMWare and Parallels are working to make it easier to use your Windows games on the Mac platform so you don't have to look for specific OS X games.

[ultrabob]

what!

truly the only thing SOLID about vista is the cd it comes on.

[afterhours]

come on... Vista isn't THAT bad.

Note that I am solidly sold on the advantages of the Mac OS, and
Macs in general, for business and personal use, but Vista is a
functional OS. My experience is that it is just about as stable as
XP Pro (I use the Business release), almost as fast on the same
hardware, vulnerable to a lot of the same 'dumb-user' tricks,
and the only huge drawback is that there are no drivers for my 4
yr old printers.

That HP and Epson haven't invested time to write the drivers,
having been given 2 years of dev time to do so with Vista, isn't
really Microsoft's fault, 'though it is fun to blame Redmond.

Vista has pretty graphics, rounded buttons, and -- well, to be
frank, an awful lot of it looks like XP Pro. Kind of like how much
of Leopard still looks like Tiger or Panther or Jaguar or even
Puma... evolution is like that.

Is there anything compelling about Vista? I don't feel more
secure using it than XP. The virus and spy/adware threat
remains. If I shared this computer with other people, or I was
dumb enough to click on any ol' link in an email or website, then
I'd probably have to nuke and pave (reformat and reinstall)
Windows frequently like many of my colleagues. So that doesn't
feel any different to XP.

I don't think I've ever had to nuke and pave my old G4 or the
new Mac Mini, or even the older G3 that saw me through OS 9,
and 10.0-10.3, come to think of it. Our Dell has had non-viral
problems in the past, and nuking it with clean installs happened
at least yearly.

But for Vista, I haven't yet had to do that. And I've been running
Vista (in Parallels-- the old Dell would never be able to run it)
for several months now. It's not THAT bad. It's just not the
pleasure to use that Tiger is.

[sanenazok]

as if...

Vista doesn't come on a CD but a DVD, or something like four CD's. So it's at least FOUR times as SOLID as you claim!

Anyways, I've been using Vista at home and work since 1Q of this year and now that case management software came out with an update, everything works at least as it did with XP.

[MacVet]

Slight omission...

Should have noted that OS X 10.4 (Tiger) was already more advanced in comparison to WinXP, and that Vista copied many features/functions from Tiger.

Thus, Apple had already raised the bar beyond WinXP, and Leopard only extends that lead.

Additionally, others with deep tech knowledge have already noted that Leopard includes many foundational advances (certified UNIX core, core animation, etc.) that-- while not "glitzy" in the same way as some of the new features-- provide significant benefits to developers, and ultimately will result in new, rich applications.

[rapier1]

Ignorance is no excuse...

While it took MS some time to release Vista it should be noted that during that time XP had two service packs released for it. These service packs were *********** equivilant to the minor version updates that Apple released during that time. So while Apple has released more versions of its OS during that time (5 inclusive of 10.0 and 10.4) MS is only behind by one revision (included XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, and Vista) in their consumer desktop OSes. Two now that 10.5 is being released.

[Penguinisto]

True - to a point.

Yes, XP released two service packs... how profitable were they
for Microsoft (since they were given away for free)?

Also, the problem with trying to do a lump-sum huge new OS
version is that stuff tends to fall off on the way to production
(e.g. WinFS)... with Apple's pace, they can instead add (and focus
on) a handful of solid features at a time.

With Apple's pricing, it's pretty attractive as well. You don't have
to run out and buy a new machine - you just get the latest OS
whenever you desire or feel the need to (Leopard runs on 2000-
era G3-800's for Heaven's sake). The OS itself is only $120 or so
(more on that in a sec).

Apple also pays much closer attention to compatibility after the
OSX shake-up - there aren't many programs that I can't get for
my current install of 10.3.9... and 10.3 was the version that
came with my Mac in 2004. I can pony up for 10.5, install that,
and be good to go for a couple years more.

While it'll likely cost me $120 for 10.5 and will work just fine on
my old machine, Vista users who want anything near the same
features and eye candy are going to have to pony up $400+ for
Ultimate, and stand a solid chance of having to buy a new
computer while they're at it. I'd certainly say that I got the better
end of that particular stick.

It's things like this that is giving Apple a far better momentum
than MSFT these days.

/P

[samkass]

tired old argument

If you think XP's service packs were "functionally equivalent" to Apple's major releases, you probably weren't using MacOS X at the time. XP had lots of bugs patches consolidated, some security bolt-ons, and some minor application upgrades. During this time MacOS X had major changes to threading in its kernel, system-wide indexing, Quartz Extreme compositing engine, system-wide address book, updated finder, expose, encrypted home directories, a new web browser, Automator, Core Image, Core Video, new database APIs, text-to-voice, live searching "smart folders", dashboard widgets, fast user switching, and tons of UI refinements and developer APIs. These are more than Microsoft has released in "service packs".

I think people making the argument that Leopard is the equivalent of another "service pack" are technologists who are looking at lines of code changed or specific technologies implemented. The bottom line is that Leopard is going to be a major release for the *users* who will be able to get stuff done significantly easier and developers who will be able to create new applications that much easier.

[tydzn]

Apple has Software Update.

Service Packs are only OS fixes and not substantial upgrades to
software or OS features. Apples releases similar free updates to it's
current OS. Mac OS X Tiger is currently at OS 10.4.10 - It's had 10
software updates since it was released. Previous versions of OSX
has had similar software updates.

[m.meister]

Services Packs not the same

Service Packs are not the same with one exception. OS X 10.1
was a service pack (and also was free).

However, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 each contained 150+
features (with 10.5 being twice that). And not just little features
or hardware support improvements -- but big stuff.

Spotlight, Dashboard, Expose, Safari, Automator, Spaces, Time
Machine, Intel support (with transparent PPC compatibility),
seamless 64-bit support, major revisions of development tools
with each cycle.

That's just off the top of my head. I don't think you can find the
equivalent level of "enhancements" to Windows XP in the Service
Packs.

[toosday]

But is it worth $130?

My only problem with this release is that it isn't leaps and bounds beyond Tiger. Of course, on one hand, I shouldn't expect it to be a Great Advance, since OS X is good as it is. On the other hand, though, I look at Windows XP SP2 and see that Microsoft offered just as many new features at the time as Apple is offering with their new OS - only MS gave it away free. I certainly don't imagine Apple to give away ALL of the features, but a lot of the new Leopard-only stuff will run just fine in Tiger. So, why should I pay $130 USD for an upgrade such as this?

So, the question that I answered for myself a while ago about Leopard was, "Do I really need to buy 10.5 or should I just wait an upgrade once I buy a new Mac?" I chose the latter.

[Penguinisto]

That's the beauty of it...

It doesn't have to be. :)

Sounds weird at first, but think about this: I use 10.3 happily at home. With one exception (AC3D - a 3d modeling app), I haven't seen a need to upgrade. At all.

I might get Leopard, though - mostly because I skipped Tiger entirely. It would only cost me $130 over four years for OS upgrades over the entire 7 years I intend to use this thing (the 10.3 install came with the machine).

Pretty cool how that works out, no? :)

/P

[Thomas, David]

Yes It Is

From the base of the code, all the way through, to the user
interface there are fundamental changes that taken as a whole,
offer a better OS than its predecessor. I've been using different
beta copies of Leopard for some time now.

Leopards base code has been re-written to make the OS full 64-
bit. 32-bit performance isn't sacrificed, and as a developer you
still only need one copy of the developer kit. Compilation for
32, and 64 bit applications is simplified to that of a single click.

Say what you want about personal backups, Time Machine is a
impressive step forward in managing backups. Shadowcopy is
just that, a shadow of what Time Machine offers. Typically
debaters get lost in discussing what the two have in common,
not in what is different about the two. Time Machine treats
backups more like a relational database, allowing you to restore
information at a more detailed level.

Spaces, a feature known to the "X" world, was implemented in a
friendly fashion to the operating system. If you are one of those
people who like to run simultaneous applications, at the same
time, will love the implementation of single-user multiple
desktops. You can even dedicate a desktop to an application. It
seemed trivial to me, at first, but then I started using it, and
loving it.

For developers, Core Animation ushers in a path for creating
applications that have a usability that make using current
applications feel like you're in the stone ages. There are more
than a few notable graphic development platforms, but none as
easy to implement, with such functionality as Core Animation.
To make it sweeter, Core Animation doesn't replace any current
open standard graphics systems, but "embraces" them. This is
in contrast to another company discouraging other graphics
systems, and strong arming you into their proprietary one. But I
did digress there. The true nut of Core Animation is its well
thought out approach to providing complex graphics to
developers while insulating them from a huge learning curve.

Yes, it's worth 130 dollars, if anything Time Machine alone
should justify that cost. A decent backup, that makes managing
it seem like you're doing nothing at all.

[theveggiedude]

For most, probably yes

One reviewer thought that Time Machine alone was worth the price. When I look at the 10 biggest improvements, I certainly think it is worth it.

[frankwick]

corp world would balk at the many releases

I like frequent releases for personal use (as long as I don't have to pay $130 per year), but corps are often on 5 year plans for their desktops. If MS released a Windows update every 18 months, corps would skip 2-3 versions at a time. It is common practice now for corps to only deploy every other release of Office. A desktop OS is 100x more difficult to deply across a large company than an office suite.

XP shipped in 2001, most companies deployed in 2003-ish. Vista shipped beginning of this year and won't see widespread adoption until late 2008. Some companies are so satisfied with XP, that they may take the Office route and skip Vista and wait for Windows 7.

[Penguinisto]

corp doesn't have to care.

OSX doesn't [i]require[/i] updating every time a new release comes out. It's more a'la carte... if you're happy with, say 10.3 (like me), you don't have to bother with 10.4, or even 10.5.

Incidentally, Windows 95, 98, 2000... notice the dates? Lash on ME, NT, and XP to that list, and you have a very short series of release cycles, no?

Hell, I remember all the MSFT-generated hoopla about adding Windows [i]NT[/i] migration tools to Windows Server [i]2003[/i].

As for "deployment" (a Microsoft term) of a desktop OS? Feh - This is why we're moving to Linux wholesale... that way we don't have to care (you can bump only the bits you want --including the kernel-- or bump the whole thing, and be good to go. No system flush/re-install required).

/P

[m.meister]

mostly true

Apple targets consumers, small and medium-sized business.

Corporations are much more strict in what is allowed to run.
Much of this has to do with the fact that it is much easier for an
end user of Windows to mess up not only their system, but
others as well.

IT departments also like homogeny. They would rather have 100
out of date systems than 90 out of date and 10 newer systems.
The processes in place at most IT departments is geared towards
everything being the same.

Finally, for the record, the 5 year lag in XP to Vista was not due
to MS' concern about releasing too often. The 5 year gap was
due to many other reasons inside of MS headquarters.

[GraveDigger27]

Not as clear cut as you make it sound

I've been a Mac user for over a decade and I haven't see the constant updating of Mac OS X as positively as you make it sound. Yes, the product has gotten a LOT better with each new version. But Apple has also increased the system requirements for each step, forcing their users to upgrade their old machines as well as pay for the "hundreds of new features" each time as well. My 300 mhz G3 mini-tower and 233 mhz iBook could run dual OS 9 and 10.2 but in order to run Panther (10.3) my beige G3 was left behind as was my old Wallstreet Powerbook. Tiger (10.4) required a DVD drive, built-in Firewire and twice as much memory and harddisk space. Leopard won't support my 600 mhz iBook or G4 AGP Graphics Powermac (450 mhz) - it needs a 867 mhz or faster G4, G5 or Intel processor, 512 megs of memory and 9-12GB of harddisk space. At least Microsoft didn't charge me when they released the service packs for XP and while Vista is a large upgrade for PC users and requires a significant hardware upgrade it's been 6 years that I could use XP with my older equipment. Apple has gotten me with every upgrade from 10.2 on.

[Tom Krazit]

But you didn't have to make those upgrades, right?

It's not like they forced you on that upgrade path, and those advances in hardware requirements are incremental compared to the difference between what's needed to run XP and what's needed to run Vista.

[afterhours]

Timeframes?

So you bought a beige G3 computer and 5 years later there's
finally an OS release that it couldn't run natively unless you
installed a USB card in your PCI slot? And you couldn't run Tiger
because you didn't put a DVD-ROM drive and a Firewire card in
the machine? And you think Windows people would even blink
twice if all they had to do was spend <$100 in parts to have the
SAME machine suitable for such significant OS changes?

My daugher has a clamshell iBook 466 -- it's running 10.4.10
without issue.

You bought another iBook sold in October 21001 and an early
G4 tower manufactured in 1999 and you're pissed that Apple
has some kind of perceived 'planned obsolescence' to their
product line because Leopard is too much for it. How many of
your Windows machines running XP were SOLD in 1999 (XP was
released in 2001)?

Let's be a little more fair with our expectations.

[TV James]

Service Packs are not the same as upgrades

You cannot compare Service Packs to upgrades. Often SPs fix a problem while new versions of the mac os offer new functionality.

Microsoft would actually very wise to follow this model. Stop bulldozing all but the first and second floor every ten years and then trying to rebuild the building. Take Vista or its successor, fix it, and consider it the last new OS. Then take the Apple approach and slowly(ish) evolve/innovate newness, new life.

Microsoft has all kinds of amazing things sitting on the shelf or locked away in programmers' heads that have never come to commercial fruition because they haven't had the time to devote to them because they're busy trying to recreate the wheel every few years and then spending excessive amounts of time trying to then fix the wheel.

I would gladly pay X for a new computer with a new operating system and then $50/year for upgrades, enhancements and new innovations (and I'm sure, a years' worth of patches, updates and fixes.)

[theveggiedude]

Well, Apple has their own patches too

Apple doesn't call it service packs, but they do issue timely updates to the system and yes it is free. They don't wait to lump it into one big thing, they just release it when they feel it is ready to go.

[frankwick]

DRIVERS DRIVERS DRIVERS

The key to Vista is the 3rd party drivers. As a user you must keep these updated. The problem is that many drivers are not Vista specific and are dumbbed down to support XP. This may work, but it does not allow Vista to shine as it could. Until devices makers create new drivers for Vista only, we will not see any realbenefit of Vista over XP.

[Penguinisto]

...MSFT's fault.

[i]"As a {Vista} user you must keep these updated."[/i]

Just be careful that WGA doesn't kick in, call you a pirate, and shut off your machine. ;)

Face it - any OS that relies on someone else's drivers to avoid being gimped that hard is rather poorly designed. It is supposed to run just fine with its own in-house drivers (within reason of course). If Vista cannot even do that (and apparently it can't), then it shows bad design and poor implementation. OSX can do this (for obvious reasons). Linux can do this (in spite of little to no support from 3rd parties). Why can't Vista?

/P

[TheRealJizzler]

I with ya!

I'd gladly pay about $100/year if it kept MS working on performance and features as well as bug fixes.

[m.meister]

64-bit answer

Some folks may see 10.5 as less than significant. But given that
Leopard is both 32-bit /64-bit OS is quite significant.

Windows has a completely separate release for its 64-bit
version.

A 64-bit OS won't mean a lot to some folks (which is why there
are lots of other goodies), but the changes are very significant.

Kudos to Apple for being able to (once again) seamlessly allow
full 64-bit apps to run along side 32-bit apps.

[theveggiedude]

That's a biggy!!

Oh yea, try running 32-bit apps on a 64-bit version of Windows - it crawls.

Leopard is fully native for both 32 and 64-bit apps.

[richto]

Real 64 bit answer.

Actually The Vista CD has both 32 bit and 64 bit versions on it, its not 'a completely seperate release' - just an install option.

And if you install the 64 bit version then you can run both 64 and 32 bit applications side by side. Get a clue...

[pierce200]

Hardly A Seismic Event

For whatever reason, I can't seem to get fired up for 10.5.
Maybe I'm asking too much from a computer, but I don't think
Apple's new OS will change my life.
When my app's get approved, I'll blindly enter the herd.
Is this the beginning of Mac burnout?

[serpamac]

Mac Burnout?

I can understand your feelings... having benefited from a stable,
almost-virus/hacking-free, exciting, mind-opening OS for so many
years...

You should switch to Windows! Then you will have your hands busy
cleaning up, reformatting, reinstalling, turning off and on, checking
on validation and supporting the ever-present Big Eye of Microsoft
over most activities you intend to do! Must be less boring, no?

[roark1]

re: HARDLY A SEISMIC EVENT

There are plenty of great new things going on in Leopard. While
they may seem quite small, they are the small things that make
life in OSX so nice and happy. The "big" thing I am looking
forward to is customized email stationary. You say, "big
whoop"... true... but it's something that I know is going to be
great, well done in Apple "style" and will make my emails a
standout and unique. Time Machine is one of those things that
could save peoples lives or lively hood. "Spaces" could make
working on projects a little easier to "spread out" and organized.
and the upgrade to iChat is going to make conference calls a
reality for the "rest of us".

Apple keeps churning and burning the wee hours of its R&D
department to keep us "Machead" a head of the pack. Leopard
throws Vista back into the stoneage once again. Now that it
finally caught up to Tiger.

Hopefully Apple will keep "burning itself out" like this from now
on. If you want to feel "Burnt" maybe you take a step or two
backwards in time and switch to Vista.

[skrubol]

Huh??

Are you talking about Windows for Itanium, or Windows for x64? I've got an XP x64 box and had a Vista x64 box (that I had to downgrade to x86 for VPN software,) and neither had any sort of slowdown for 32 bit software. Any slowdown I've seen reported in benchmarking was in the 2-5% range (not noticable to a human.)
Windows x64 runs 32 bit code 100% natively.

[ex2bot]

Cost of OS X Over the Years

I wanted to make a point about the cost of OS X.

People are taking 4 upgrades since 10.0 and multiplying them
by $129, with a cost of $516. That's a lot, although there have
been some significant improvements and new features, some
capabilities that (gasp!) even Windows doesn't have (core data,
core animation, Expose' for ex.)

But it was possible to get by for much less. The 10.1 upgrade
was FREE. Subtract $129. Many Mac users skipped 10.2 and
upgraded only to .3. Subtract another $129. Grand total: $129
in upgrade costs. Vista: Somewhat more. Right?

Now, add $129 for Leopard (or $109 on Amazon) for a total of
about $240 or $250. Comparable to Vista? Yes. Maybe a bit
more. But not outrageous, IMHO.

Do your research, people.

Bot

P.S. Is anyone still reading these comments?

[mroverswing]

Compare Apples to Apples In Your Closing!

Let's be fair here. Your closing comments compare the advances of XP-to-Vista against Leopard to To compare the advances of Leopard to Tiger vs. XP to Vista is unfair. Just because it took Microsoft so long to move, a fair comparison would be comparing Leopard to whichever operating system Apple had (a few versions ago I might add) in play back then.

[notrylook]

my family members designed vista

This is not necessarily on-subject, but very telling about OS X
and Vista.

I just had a reunion with some family who work at microsoft.
The last time I met them they were some of the chief designers
on the Windows tablet OS. For the past 3 years they have been
designing Vista. And it was hard to bite my tongue and not say a
thing when they pulled out their ipod touch, iphone, and
macbooks on the trip. Over the years they always talk about
Apple products very disparagingly:"I just bought this 12"
powerbook but I'm going to return it because it sucks." "I'm just
keeping it around for reference." "I hate iTunes". Of course, they
still have that old 12" powerbook, and isn't it funny that Vista
looks like a version of OS X Tiger remade by a Korean phone
manufacturer? The same, but crappier, but with more blue,
orange, and other visual garbage?

Anyway, as someone who is related to some of the folks who
actually made Vista and past and present versions of windows,
for me this settles the debate of innovation, look and feel, and
the lot. If the MS designers are spending their free time with OS
X at home, of course Vista is a reverse engineered version of OS
X. Just with a few more clicks per minute, per hour, per year....

[notrylook]

one more thing....

Also, I have to say it was even harder to bite my tongue when
they pulled out their windows laptops on the trip: " CRAP! the
battery is out because it wasn't turned off when you shut it! It
was on 'hibernate' not 'stand by!' F&%K" And there we were,
hours from the nearest outlet. (note: even though I use windows
3 days a week, I still don't know which is correct, hibernate or
standby, so you can reorder my quote above.) I have to admit its
hard not to feel smug when I think of my clamshell ibook back
in 1999 just going to sleep automatically, friendly and peaceful
and powered, whenever closed. And to think these are the
people who made MANY MILLIONS off the Windows OS by the
age of 25.

[Rusty Digital Marketing]

Software Self-Sufficiency

Mac OS X Leopard makes using a computer even easier for most people. Ease of use is a very big reason to use an Apple Mac rather than a Windows-based PC, and Apple is developing its leadership position with Leopard. Nothing wrong with maintaining your competitive differentiation.

People who would like to read up on the new features might look at sites such as www.SoftwareSelfSufficiency.com/osx-leopard.html

Rusty