OSNews

On the other hand Microsoft doesn't charge for their functional adding service packs. Not that I argue a major OS X release doesn't add more than bug fixes + one or two features, but still.

Anyway Windows basic is so basic it's shit and ultimate is redicilously expensive, so sure Microsoft could have made only one good version (ultimate) and sold it for a "middle cost".

If they are affraid people won't buy it because it's so expensive and consider other oses they can always make the OEM version real cheap

In the light of Windows Ultimate macs aren't that expensive, vs FreeBSD or similair they indeed are thought

"On the other hand Microsoft doesn't charge for their functional adding service packs. Not that I argue a major OS X release doesn't add more than bug fixes + one or two features, but still"


Come on! How many times should we hear the same stupid sh...?

Microsoft Service packs are nothing more than bugs fixes and some features improvements, which is exactly what Apple does with their 10.x.x releases. Don't tell me that XP SP2 was more than that, SP2 was intended to fix an insecure system and a flawed design for security, so its a bug fix release!!!!
If you would really know what really Apple put in their major release (which also means that if you would be a OS X user ), you would not say that, i means stop being stupid, check it on the Apple web site.

And if i follow your thinking, microsoft should have proposed Vista for free, right? How do you explain that it costs a fortune, but still it is bloody full of major bugs.

Erm, 10.x.x releases are bugfix and security releases. They do NOT add new features to the operating system. Service Packs for Windows, well, sometimes they add new features, sometimes they don't.



Yeah and it introduced a set of new features. And no, it did not fix a flawed design for security. There is nothing wrong with NT's security. It's Microsoft's sloppy default setup that is to blame, not NT's security itself.

Easy on the exclamation marks, by the way.



Because Windows Vista is a much bigger release than any of the OS X .x releases. Leopard has "300 new features"? By Apple's count, Vista'd have 300 000. Of course, that's Microsoft's own bloody fault.

Removed comment;
Wrong context. I thought you meant "10.?" instead of 10.x.?"
---
I personally think that Vista is like X.0 in many ways. Avalon is a great system, potentially much better than Core Animation. The problem is that the whole UI stack on Windows is a laughing stock and needs to be scrapped. I was fed up with waiting for Microsoft to make Windows into what I now know I already have with Mac OS X.

Edited 2007-10-25 11:26

So I suppose the vast addition of device support with driver updates, bluetooth improvements in the 10.3.x releases, etc. are all my imagination?

Come off it Thom.

Are the changes as visible? No. Are they there? Yes.

Personally, I much prefer the Apple model.

I'd rather pay smaller chunks of money for incremental updates to functions and features TODAY than pay buttloads of money for stuff I don't need that gets delivered FIVE YEARS LATE.

Apple is consistently delivering valuable additions to their Operating System and Platform. People are taking notice, look no further than the recent reports on sales figures for proof.

Oddly enough, Apple's stance on delivering yearly updates to the software is more in line with Eric S. Raymond's suggestions in The Cathedral and the Bazaar than the MicroSoft thrice a decade model.

People want polished things today, not tomorrow, not six years from now.

Because a number is FAR more important than actual functionality.

Did XP get hardware accelerated UI in a service pack?
How about a low-latency sound system?
A hardware accelertaed real time video / image processing unit?
Full meta search capability??

Oh, and Mac OS X updates get faster each release, not slower in every single aspect. And even if that's down to "bad coding", Tiger is still faster than Vista.

Definitely true. It's ridiculous to compare Apple's .x releases with Windows service packs.



They have been offering Windows Desktop Search for ages now, for XP. For free.



Most definitely. Apple has a great track record on this one. Microsoft is getting better at this one though, Vista's performance has been improved pretty well since its release.

OF course, it was kind of hard not to improve its performance. Kind of like OS X 10.0.

You have to admit that Windows Desktop Search on XP blows. Google desktop on XP is far better. WDS on Vista is better though.

OS X's release cycle isn't bad at all. It's incremental and easier to budget for. Vista is very expensive, essentially requires you to get new hardware to get the most out of it. While it is true that it's the only upgrade a Windows user has had to pay for since XP, people just don't think like that. They just see the $300 price tag for ultimate or the requirement of a new computer.

OS X on the other hand appears inexpensive, it adds new features each time will install and run well on reasonably recent machines. And you get security/bug updates for free, just like Windows.

"Oh, and Mac OS X updates get faster each release, not slower in every single aspect. And even if that's down to "bad coding", Tiger is still faster than Vista."

OSX updates *may* get faster with each .1 release, but who's to say that Vista won't get faster over time? It's already gotten faster even over the past year, without any .1 release or SP release. Vista is slower than XP on the same hardware, but so was OSX 10.0 slower than Mac OS 9 on the same hardware.

BTW, for many, Tiger is *slower* than Panther. And the fact that Apple is not allowing Leopard to be installed on lower-end G4 systems (G4 systems with less than 800MB or less than 800Hz, or whatever it was (I forget :p)), would indicate that Leopard is slower than Tiger on similar hardware.

Edit: Kroc listed the real Leopard system requirements above, so I add them here rather than letting my fuzzy memory on the subject try to stand on its own (lol):
Tiger: PPC G3,4,5 (as low as 400 MHz I think) / Intel, must have Firewire, 256MB RAM, 512MB realistic
Leopard: PPC G4,5 (867Mhz+) / Intel, 512MB, 1GB realistic

My point, of course, still stands, that Leopard would appear to be slower than Tiger, particularly on lower-end hardware, since Apple isn't allowing installation on such hardware. So the claim that every OSX release increases performance is shaky at best.

Edited 2007-10-25 17:51

"My point, of course, still stands, that Leopard would appear to be slower than Tiger, particularly on lower-end hardware, since Apple isn't allowing installation on such hardware. So the claim that every OSX release increases performance is shaky at best. "

Molly Molly Molly... Your "point" of course.... is just your biased opinion! thats it!! the FACT is that most Mac users (MOST) see a speed bump when they upgrade to a new Mac OS. and that the way it has been since 10.2. I am sure 10.5 will be the same! (for now... that just my opinion... for now)

History tells us.

The history of Microsoft products is not in improving performance but sending out bug fixes and security patches. XP did not run faster as time went on. Vista did slightly but the history of MS tells us that they won't continue to make performance improvements.

The history of Apple is very different. Each version of Mac OS X has improved performance.

Mate, I'm sorry, but as soon as you said:

You have lost ALL credibility in this debate.

Mac OS X is more than just a service pack - just because it doesn't go for 'teh bigger number is teh better' as Microsoft.

What did Windows XP bring over Windows 2000? some kernel tweaks, interface tweak and thats it; all of it could have been done through a service pack. What has Windows Vista provided?

I look through the various versions of MacOS X I have purchased, 10.3, 10.4 and soon to be 10.5 - and each time I bought a copy, I NEVER had buyers regret. I never had that moment of 'geeze that was a waste of money give the lack of features/changes/improvements'.

Look at the differences mate. One hand you have PC users screaming, wailing and whining over Windows Vista. Mac users like me on the other hand EXCITED about a new release; your side is petrified of what could go wrong. We're excited about what has been included, the new features and so forth. See the huge difference between the two worlds?

First, I'm both, MS an Apple hater. Both because of my long term relationship with them.

What did Windows XP bring over Windows 2000? some kernel tweaks, interface tweak and thats it; all of it could have been done through a service pack. What has Windows Vista provided?

Yeah right. User switching, new browser, new mailer, new IM, completely restructured sound and graphics. On 2000 you can't even watch video decently.

XP was more than service pack. Not that I like XP, I actually hate it.

I look through the various versions of MacOS X I have purchased, 10.3, 10.4 and soon to be 10.5 - and each time I bought a copy, I NEVER had buyers regret. I never had that moment of 'geeze that was a waste of money give the lack of features/changes/improvements'.

I on the other hand had those regrets. And I know a lot of people who do. It is just you who is blinded not to see that kind of people.

It's like you would say that there is no happy MS user out there, or linux, or solaris.

All systems have happy and unhappy users. Difference that OSX runs on one hardware only is just much easier to maintain. Most of the problems with windows arise from hardware drivers, where Apple gets by the easy way. Second is malicious software, which is not present on OSX or linux. One reason is that niche platforms don't have enough users, second are better and more sane security defaults.

See the huge difference between the two worlds?

Yeah, in your two worlds there is a difference.

Leopard is supported on over 50 hardware revisions from Apple (that doesn't include processor bumps). It supports 4 different architectures (PowerPC and Intel, both 32-bit and 64-bit). I have binaries that run on all four, without modification (that were released before Tiger).

Microsoft doesn't have anything like this. Have you heard the pain the Vista 64-bit people are going through? XP 64-bit was nearly a joke. When Microsoft supported Alpha and MIPS in NT 4.0 could you find any applications to run on it?

Linux doesn't have anything like this. Everything in Linux is built for a specific architecture, not to run seamlessly across architectures.

To downplay the idea that Mac OS is running on two significantly different architectures and two variations of each of those architectures is to miss something very exciting (it was largely overlooked when NeXT did it years ago). But that's quite a testament to its effectiveness. When you don't even notice that you're running a PowerPC binary on an Intel processor, Apple has succeeded.


By writing or porting their own drivers? Oh yeah, that's the easy way.

From The Inquirer:

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/08/14/64-bit-leopa...

Tiger (OS X 10.5) is NOT a service pack. This is not something where Apple is slipping in a feature or two.

As for 300 features, technically yes. People will say it is pretty pathetic that they count each new feature in a program separately to come up with 300. My point would be that if Apple didn't create that feature and you really wanted it, then you would definitely count it as a feature you would want added. Based on that, then yes, there are 300 new features in Tigard.

Now compare that to a service pack in Windows. They don't compare at all. AND, does ANY update to Windows make your computer faster or YOU faster at getting things done with the same computer? Or do you have to buy a computer that is four times faster just to get back to the same speed as the previous version you had before? Not to mention all the nagging that Vista now has.

Learn what? Make snarky comments? I thought that was Balmers job?

Not to screw their customers for all there worth, give more better and updated OS more frequently, give everyone the same features for the same price, Dont put your new graphics API into the OS so people need to update a whole new OS just for that, need I go on?

You won't need a new OS for OpenGL 3.0, just new drivers.

Edited 2007-10-25 18:13

I do agree with your point ... but Vista was meant to be the OS X of MacOS.

They've screwed it up by trying to retain backwards compatibility but with all the changes in Vista (not always for the best) I'd compare XP/Vista more to OS9 and OS X

Aero is not a replacement for Direct X, open GL has nothing to do with it other than in Vista OpenGL now runs within DX making the whole idea almost pointless..

XP is much slower now than when it originally came out but also MUCH more secure... Vista is getting faster as time goes on but only because the OS was half baked on release in the first place.

I've heard rumours that the GM of leopard isn't perfect... I hope it turns out better for Apple than it did for MS.

However i think it can't be ignored that OS X isn't necessarily THAT much cheaper then windows over the long run. Since the initial OS X release there have been two new versions of windows (xp, vista) and now 5 versions of macos. So even at 100-150 a piece, staying current costs almost as much as going with MS.

Yeah, only thing I wonder is how fast coverflow in finder are. Steve aka BOOM jobs often show how fast iPhoto are and in his videos coverflow is real fast. But I wonder how it can even BE that fast, I guess they could put some graphics in regular memory or I wonder if it will use even more of my VRAM which Apple was only giving me a tiny amount of in the first place.

Apple suck for that and I will always hate them for it, 128MB is retarded and you shouldn't force people to pay like 700 dollar more for 256MB...

Aperture works like shit on 128MB if someone wonder.

Are you on a MBP? I don't experience such a problem. 128VRAM is fine, I've managed to run Quake 4 on high detail (obviously not max), Tomb Raider Anniversary on max, and this is on an ATI-1600. The new graphics cards in the MBPs are massively better, ranging about 4000 3DMarks.

What you might be experiencing in Apature is a laggy HDD, not VRAM.

If you are working with PRO programs, which Aperture is, then you need PRO amounts of RAM. You can either get that by buying the PRO version of the Mac Book or the Mac Pro, both of which have PRO amounts of RAM.

The non pro computers (they don't have pro in the name) are made for non pro people but made so that you can upgrade them (to a point) for pro use.

Actually ... yes. It really is that fast on any Apple computer bought in the last couple of years. As with any computer with Windows, the newer the computer the faster anything works.

What might surprise you is that every version of Mac OS X that I've installed on my 7 year old iMac which is my wife's main computer (I get the newer ones since I do higher end stuff) always runs faster than previous versions of Mac OS X on that same hardware.

Now has any new version of Windows run faster on your computer than a previous version? How about service packs? Do any of those make your Windows computer run faster than without the service packs? Maybe a little or most likely it just crashes less. But faster, rarely with Windows but always with Mac OS X. AND you can document it with a stop watch. It is real and you can time it.

Steve aka BOOM jobs

???

... and Steve the CHAIR DESTROYER balmer? Whoah, Put them into ring.

Probably would just feature two monkey like jumping&shouting creatures. One shouting "features, features..." and second one "developers, developers, developers"

Sorry, couldn't resist on this one, but this whole thread is like a Vista, OSX showdown without a simple basis to stand on.

There are a very limited amount of (non-Apple branded) Apple compatible components, and I'm very confident you can't install a retail copy on it.

If we are talking a hack on a BIOS/EFI machine I'm very confident it will happen.

Check this for running Mac OS X on a regular PC:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/

We're talking about building an actual Mac, not installing an unsupported, buggy, hacked operating system. Parent said "Retail version"

Drivers / EFI boot ROM.
If you could get hold of an Apple motherboard, then sure, I'm fairly certain that you could then build a Mac yourself.

AFAICT the only things that make a Mac, a Mac, is the EFI firmware which would identify the machine and that the OS would work with. You can install Mac OS on a totally blank hard disk, so there's nothing there preventing it.

Bunch a Apple fan boys reviewing again. Maybe it's accident that these same people praised iPhone like hell before any real review came up and now they review Leopard as first. After reading what crap Mossberg said about iPhone and what reality turned out I don't think anyone should take this guy serious. Same goes for David Pogue too. Lets wait few days before real reviews hit the internet.

Agreed.

It appears that your comment is too rational for this forum -- for some strange reason, I am unable to mod-up your post.

Edited 2007-10-25 11:37

That's because you already did.

We're watching you.

for some strange reason, I am unable to mod-up your post.

That's because you already did.

Well, the rank doesn't change when I click to mod-up a comment. I tried several times with everything turned-on in the browser. UI feedback is sort of important.


We're watching you.

You certainly know how to make members feel welcome and free to comment.

Probably got modded down in the time between your last refresh and the upmod effectively cancelling it out. Happens all the time.

It was probably a joke. Thom may SEEM humorless at times, but I bet he has a pretty good sense of humor.

Lighten up, it was a joke. Damn internet.

My Bad, your right, I think I was having a bad day and lost my sense of humor when I made this post.

How is the iPhone not what it is?
Apple offered a prodct as it is, and people bought it. The reviewers were actually not that full of praise, all of them pointed out massive ommissions like no video capture, no MMS &c.

It's the hackers that complained because the iPhone wasn't what they want; but then I don't go trolling the Internets just because I can't freely choose to change the OS on the Wii and other closed systems.

I think, frankly, that you are trying to place your own frustrations into the mouths of these reviewers, rather than giving them the benefit of their own objectiveness. I though Mossberg's review was straightforward and mostly unbiased in the same way that no review made on [Apple] supplied demonstration hardware is unbiased.

And what exactly about the iPhone were they wrong about. NOTHING! Just because you can't figure it anyway that you want to does not mean that they reviews were wrong or bad. Be specific next time.

I'm confident that Leopard is a quality product (though I would wait for the 10.5.1 release), but there is some truth in what you say regarding Mossberg and Pogue. Those that trash Thurott for being biased when he reviews Microsoft products should regard Mossberg and Pogue with the same skepticism regarding their reviews of Apple products.

Anyway, Leopard might entice me to finally upgrade my 5-year old PowerBook to its modern-day intel descendant. Then again, I *just* upgraded from Panther 10.3.8 to 10.3.9 yesterday, having ignored Software Update's notifications regarding 10.3.9 for over two years or so. :p So I'm pretty slow when it comes to updating anything, be it software or hardware.

Edited 2007-10-25 17:18

Your comment does not compute.

"From 10.0 release to 10.5 there is practically no major update to the Mac OS."

So have you tried training for Olympic-level lying? I'm sure you'd go quite far in the 2012 games.