OS X Leopard

[cacruden]

Read them, and I can say I have not run into ANY problems yet.

I did notice that the firewall is disabled to begin with - that is easy to fix - enable it.... but since I always have routers and switches that have firewall software installed - I prefer having it disabled anyway.

Now, I did do a clean install - but that is a lesson that I learned along time ago with Windows -- better to do a clean install -- then install the software that you want to install.

I think most of it is just someone trying to make a few bucks by shouting the sky is falling.

 

[cacruden]

I know a few people that just bought new laptops with Windows Vista installed on it .... apparently it is running like a slug..... and eats up 700MB without any applications running (XP was between 300MB - 400MB) - can't fix that very easy - and I prefer using my memory for applications.

BTW - Leopard is NO slower than the last version.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Two of my friends upgraded to Leopard in the first week, neither reported having any problems.
Windows Vista is not without issues but it easily runs 25% faster than XP did on my Dell XPS. I did a fresh install of XP shortly after I got this PC in February, then did a fresh install of Vista in July when I was ready to make the leap.

 

[syn]

Read them, and I can say I have not run into ANY problems yet.

I did notice that the firewall is disabled to begin with - that is easy to fix - enable it.... but since I always have routers and switches that have firewall software installed - I prefer having it disabled anyway.

Now, I did do a clean install - but that is a lesson that I learned along time ago with Windows -- better to do a clean install -- then install the software that you want to install.

I think most of it is just someone trying to make a few bucks by shouting the sky is falling.

Is it really that hard to believe Leopard has some serious problems?

My friend has noticed Illustrator crashing quite a bit since he upgraded.

While your experience may be positive so far, it's just one out of millions. It's pretty clear that Leopard does indeed have some major issues.

 

[Hydrogen]

^And no doubt these problems will be fixed. But beyond that, have you heard reports about millions of users being affected by software problems?

 

[afransen]

I know a few people that just bought new laptops with Windows Vista installed on it .... apparently it is running like a slug..... and eats up 700MB without any applications running (XP was between 300MB - 400MB) - can't fix that very easy - and I prefer using my memory for applications.

BTW - Leopard is NO slower than the last version.

It's actually not too hard to get vista to use significantly less ram. A lot can be done using the performance panel to turn most of the graphical effects off. Essentially, morph it back to WinXP Classic (ie, Win98 look). This is what I do to most installs of Windows... crank all the graphical features down. They do next to nothing to enhance the user experience. Same goes for other OS's.

 

[MetroMan]

Depends on what you call graphical features.

Expose in OSX can be a considered a cool graphical feature. Does it enhance the user experience? Tremendously! So much that Windows Vista has adopted it as well.

Core Animation in Leopard is proving to be an enormous asset. Making use of predesigned special effects keeps the RAM load down and allows developers to use them to indeed enhance the user experience.

One little "graphical effect" in Safari is another good example of using animation to improve the user experience: when doing a search, an orange balloon will pop up on the word you're looking for on the page. This allows you to find the results very easily without having to look for bolded or highlighted results as in the past.

One more graphical effect: Cover Flow. I never thought I'd need it but it's becoming my default way of viewing files. Flipping through documents in Cover Flow has yet again increased my productivity by a huge leap.

I can't wait to see what they'll come up with for OS X 10.6

P.S. By the way, I haven't seen any of the bugs the article talks about. It seems to be specific to people who upgraded. I did a clean install.

 

[cacruden]

Is it really that hard to believe Leopard has some serious problems?

My friend has noticed Illustrator crashing quite a bit since he upgraded.

While your experience may be positive so far, it's just one out of millions. It's pretty clear that Leopard does indeed have some major issues.

One of the issues for a number of programs was that they violated guidelines and standards for writing OS/X applications, and updating files in areas that they should not (including self updating). A number of these programs were updated by the publisher shortly after Leopard came out. Had the same thing happen to me when going through "hardening" process to make sure a Unix server was secure -- usually people were updating files in places that were suppose to be read-only. The problem with Windows is that from the very beginning - there was no real thought put into security. Now Microsoft is trying to change that, and they are "breaking" a lot of programs (not that it did not need to be done) -- but they had no guidelines to prevent that to begin with.

Another problem is that they Windows operating system has been evolving by hacking things onto it -- over a long period of time -- and the push of market forces has brought it to the point where the source code is pretty unmaintainable -- which is why it took 6+ years to release Vista.

 

[cacruden]

It's actually not too hard to get vista to use significantly less ram. A lot can be done using the performance panel to turn most of the graphical effects off. Essentially, morph it back to WinXP Classic (ie, Win98 look). This is what I do to most installs of Windows... crank all the graphical features down. They do next to nothing to enhance the user experience. Same goes for other OS's.

I have another solution at work - kill anyone that suggests upgrading my Windows XP to Vista Microsoft Vista optimal platform requires 4GB of memory. Windows XP is closer to 2GB. Not many places sell a standard platform with 4GB, 2GB is typically the max - and often it is only 1GB. I have enough applications that require huge amounts of memory (i.e. Rational Application Developer, Oracle Enterprise Edition, etc.) -- and I don't need a bloated operating system in addition.

Based on polling that I have done - there are around 10 people I know of that have upgraded or bought computers with Vista installed. 8 have either stated that they are - or have removed vista and migrated back to XP. That is far higher (by far) than before. Each revision of Windows has been better than the last (up until XP) - and I have really never heard of that many people wishing to roll back before. Sales in Vista actually peaked and has declined of recent -- this is not normal either. Microsoft has a growing problem on their hands with Vista.....

The fact is that any new major release is going to have problems.... but the question is - how easy or long is it before those problems were dealt with. It has now been a year (?) since Vista's release - and there is still this sentiment about rolling back....

 

[syn]

It's actually not too hard to get vista to use significantly less ram. A lot can be done using the performance panel to turn most of the graphical effects off. Essentially, morph it back to WinXP Classic (ie, Win98 look). This is what I do to most installs of Windows... crank all the graphical features down. They do next to nothing to enhance the user experience. Same goes for other OS's.

Actually, I've found if you remove some of the programs it loads at startup (that aren't necessary) it's quite fast. It also depends on your graphics card.

 

[syn]

^And no doubt these problems will be fixed. But beyond that, have you heard reports about millions of users being affected by software problems?

I have no idea exactly how many users are being affected. The reports, however, are widespread enough to realize it's a major problem. Experts are pretty much in consensus over the security flaws too.

The fact that they'll probably fix these problems doesn't mean much. You could say the same for Windows. We're always told that Apple releases programs and hardware "that just works". Now it appears they've released an OS "that just crashes". Why would they let an OS with all these problems be released to retail? Are they really that different from MS?

 

[syn]

I have another solution at work - kill anyone that suggests upgrading my Windows XP to Vista Microsoft Vista optimal platform requires 4GB of memory. Windows XP is closer to 2GB. Not many places sell a standard platform with 4GB, 2GB is typically the max - and often it is only 1GB. I have enough applications that require huge amounts of memory (i.e. Rational Application Developer, Oracle Enterprise Edition, etc.) -- and I don't need a bloated operating system in addition.

Vista is fine with 2GB of RAM. I haven't seen any problems with it.

Based on polling that I have done - there are around 10 people I know of that have upgraded or bought computers with Vista installed. 8 have either stated that they are - or have removed vista and migrated back to XP. That is far higher (by far) than before. Each revision of Windows has been better than the last (up until XP) - and I have really never heard of that many people wishing to roll back before. Sales in Vista actually peaked and has declined of recent -- this is not normal either. Microsoft has a growing problem on their hands with Vista.....

Sales will decline because a lot of people simply don't need to upgrade. Leopard sales will likely level off at some point too.

Vista also comes installed on new systems...if you've just bought one, you obviously aren't going to go out and get a new copy of Vista.

 

[syn]

Another problem is that they Windows operating system has been evolving by hacking things onto it -- over a long period of time -- and the push of market forces has brought it to the point where the source code is pretty unmaintainable -- which is why it took 6+ years to release Vista.

Windows certainly could be better designed on the backend. However, they also have a much bigger problems to deal with as far as hardware and software compatibility go.

Apple has a very limited set of hardware possibilities to deal with. For a company that routinely touts how secure and stable they are, their latest operating system should be more secure and stable - not less.

I don't think Apple will be able to tout security as a major selling point much longer as hackers really start focusing on Apple. I also think they as they grow such problems will become more commonplace - just as they are for larger companies such as MS.

 

[cacruden]

I have no idea exactly how many users are being affected. The reports, however, are widespread enough to realize it's a major problem. Experts are pretty much in consensus over the security flaws too.

The fact that they'll probably fix these problems doesn't mean much. You could say the same for Windows. We're always told that Apple releases programs and hardware "that just works". Now it appears they've released an OS "that just crashes". Why would they let an OS with all these problems be released to retail? Are they really that different from MS?

There is a difference between an OS crash and an application crash - I have had neither since I installed a couple of weeks ago. I have not had to reboot the system either (which I do have to do at work with Windows XP - or I will have no more memory). -- so yes -- it just works ....

As far as security - yes it is not as secure as it could be -- but it is more secure than Windows XP. Linux is BY FAR the most secure operating system out there in the general marketplace (SELinux) -- but most people don't know - or don't care to make it that secure -- so they turn it off...

As far as sales -- I am judging it against previous Microsoft releases, Microsoft "conservative" predictions [which are suppose to drive revenue for other MS applications] etc. BTW, Vista on a new system IS CONSIDERED a new purchase -- it is not broken out. The new sales INCLUDE: All Corporate service contracts (whether they upgrade or not), ALL NEW computer purchases (whether they downgrade to XP or not), and ALL upgrades.

The sales of Vista have peaked (and declined) way too early - way too soon. That is a big problem for Microsoft, and they know it. Windows and Office drive MOST of their revenue.

 

[syn]

There is a difference between an OS crash and an application crash - I have had neither since I installed a couple of weeks ago. I have not had to reboot the system either (which I do have to do at work with Windows XP - or I will have no more memory). -- so yes -- it just works ....

"It just works" for you - but that hasn't been the case for a lot of other users.

XP just works for me - but I'm aware that it doesn't for a lot of people.

As far as security - yes it is not as secure as it could be -- but it is more secure than Windows XP. Linux is BY FAR the most secure operating system out there in the general marketplace (SELinux) -- but most people don't know - or don't care to make it that secure -- so they turn it off...

It's not as secure as it should be. Microsoft releases regular security updates for XP - I've had no security issues with it - does that let if off the hook?

For a company that pushes quality, etc. it's a major oversight.

As far as sales -- I am judging it against previous Microsoft releases, Microsoft "conservative" predictions [which are suppose to drive revenue for other MS applications] etc. BTW, Vista on a new system IS CONSIDERED a new purchase -- it is not broken out. The new sales INCLUDE: All Corporate service contracts (whether they upgrade or not), ALL NEW computer purchases (whether they downgrade to XP or not), and ALL upgrades.

The sales of Vista have peaked (and declined) way too early - way too soon. That is a big problem for Microsoft, and they know it. Windows and Office drive MOST of their revenue.

PC's have a much longer lifespan than they used to. There's simply no pressing reason to upgrade, and MS hasn't put much effort in convincing people they need to either. They seem more focused on their entertainment division at the moment.