OSNews

Good comment, but could've done without the accusations of editiorial bias and the ubiquitous calling out of OS Zealotry (though you avoided the Z-word in favour of "preacher"... good on ya).

Now yes, all things are relative, but in order to argue you need some objectivity. You can agree that its an objective fact that a vast majority of users couldn't care less about free beer and community. They just want a tool to get the job done, browse the internet, and sync their iPod.

Now, perhaps is not the OS for the few edge-cases out there, but for the rest an excellent operating system has just been made even better.

"Perfect" is not the word I would've used. "Best" would've been more appropriate! :-)

First of all, sound like a detergent commercial.

To be honest, I couldn't finish reading it. That you managed to read it twice astounds me.

The largest issue I have from what I read is comparing Leopard to Vista. Having a preference between the two isn't a problem. But to compare the two for the sake of a review is in my opinion pointless. That's a comparison, not a review. If an OS can't stand on its own merits then it's not worth using. When reading a review on Leopard or any other OS, I could care less if the author thinks the other guy sucks.

I mean because there aren't any reviews out there that say 10.5 is a piece of junk or anything. Perhaps those are even the majority of articles I've seen linked from major tech blogs since 10.5 has been released. I think it's more likely that this guy didn't have any of the problems other users have described and was frustrated with reading 10.5 is a piece of junk articles when it seemed perfectly fine to him.

I can't help but notice you've not even disputed one of his assertions in your post. You've attacked the author personally, but that's about it. That's not really much of a counterargument. I also notice that you decry the author's rating system, then use it yourself to rate two Linux distributions a ten.

What I also find funny is the number of these 'bad reviews' are written by those who later admit they were running hacks on their machine, they upgraded rather than an archive and install, they failed to uninstall conflicting applications.

I've yet to see a single bad review from a person who did a clean install - I did a clean install when I upgraded from Tiger and haven't experienced a single problem. My wireless works, applications work perfectly, networking is reliable, not a single application crash yet (I have no PowerPC applications btw). Everything on here just works(tm).

I would love to see, however, 10.5.2 to be released by January - fix some more long standing bugs - I'd also like to see Apple address the laundry list of bugs in their AppKit which application developers have to work around. If they reduce those bugs, improve their IDE to surpass Microsofts Visual Studio - they would create a compelling platform to develop applications on.

I am, however, disappointed that the likes of Solidworks haven't pulled their head out of their behind and realise that Mac is on the rise in engineering circles - they could lose their position as the premier must have tool.

Edited 2007-12-04 17:37

If that was his intent, why bother with the pretense of calling it a "review"?" Posting a comment on one of the negative articles that got him in a tizzy would have served the purpose just as well.



The criticism may not have been phrased that well, but the original poster's point appears to be simply that the article reads more like marketing copy than an objective review. Even just from the excerpt that was posted here, it's pretty clear that the "reviewer" is bending over backwards to praise Leopard, and there aren't many faster ways to torpedo ones' credibility (regardless of the subject of the review).

I would guess he meant compatability with programs from previous OS X versions, but that can't be right or else I wouldn't have had to download all those updates to make things work with Leopard...

Removing support for Classic should also deduct points in "compatibility".

Classic has been of no use to anyone for years now. May as well whine about how it has no support for 68K processors while we're at it.

What ? It doesn't ?

It's not quite true, a lot of apps in scientific environment has not been updated for ages. I think that even the mac os x version of omnipage run under some sort of hidden classic env...

//Classic has been of no use to anyone for years now. //

Attitudes like this explain why Microsoft rules the desktop. Backward-compatibility wins in the long run, despite the issues associated with it.

How about supporting two completely different arcchitectures (Intel and PPC) equally with only one installer? How about allowing you to run applications compiled for PPC on an Intel box with very few hickups? How about supporting 32-bit and 64-bit processors alike without needing to choose during installation? How about the ability to mix and match a broad range of open source and legacy X11-based applications with Mac OS X applications on the same desktop?

Now, I'm not saying this makes it a '10', but I still believe this has to do with compatibility, thus allowing a high score whether you like Apple and its products or not ...

A high score? Sure, around 7-8, those things you mentioned are all valid points. I wasn't saying it deserves a 1 either, but a "10"? How much did they pay him and who is going to believe that?

How about supporting two completely different arcchitectures (Intel and PPC) equally with only one installer?

Do you think this is a feature? I always thought this was a unnecessary bloated solution.

I used some Pocket PC devices back in 2003, when handhelds used different processors and architectures. It was hell trying to download the correct binary for your processor instruction set.

Being able to use a 'fat' binary across different architectures is bliss. Yes, it adds bloat since you have both PPC, x86 and x86-64 executables stored on disc, but that is nothing since most of your storage is used for media and resources which are platform independent. A fat binary usually adds 1 - 2 MB to the size of a program. It is a problem if you're trying to run it on a toaster, but it isn't an issue on most computers today.

"Do you think this is a feature? I always thought this was a unnecessary bloated solution."

I never claimed it to be a feature, merely a compatibility factor, that might be compelling to some which I find worth mentioning.
You might very well argue that it's a bloated solution, but that's not my prime concern when it comes to this particular aspect of Apples compatibility. For the sake of the argument I value 'ease of use' over the thought of it being 'bloat'.

Uh. Lets take a step back here, and think for a second. If your saying compatibility means to be able to run software on lots of different hardware, which it seems like your trying to say, then OS X would probably be the least compatible out of the major operating systems. I'd probably give it a 1, maybe a 2. If your talking about being able to run apps that were previously available on OS X but older versions then ok, I guess I could see where your coming from. Then again, OS X still isn't the best there either. I can still run some old DOS programs on Vista from the 1980's. Where's your 1980's mac programs running on OS X?

So unless he's just comparing Apple OS X with OS X... which is pointless for the rest of the world, he's completely off base with is review there. Your just trying to justify him which leaves me to believe your a Mac user as well.

I'd say that compatibility is mostly about compatibility with peripherals, printers, scanners, cameras and such. When it comes to that it should easily beat Vista. Hardware that was compatible with 10.4 should be compatible with 10.5.

You are free to write your own.

Which I did, coincidentally. The review is done and up on the backend, can be published any moment now. Five pages of Leopard review.

If I may be so bold as to ask: how did OSN get their hands on Leopard? I thin every review should include information on how the gadget/computer was received and what is the arrangement with the company (will the gadget/computer/OS be returned to the manufacturer after review or not). Naive question, for sure, but one of great importance for judging the reviewers motives.

Edited 2007-12-04 11:12

The way we usually get stuff: we buy it, or we get it on a loan basis. It's the latter in this case.

Thank you for your quick reply. I am glad to hear it, btw.

Regards,

Odisej

I asked Apple for a Review machine but they didn't give me one

Of course it's up to you what you link, I just think that having some sort of standard wouldn't hurt and that linked article is just bad. Not because it's badly written but because it's wrong and not an honest review.

What makes you think it isn't?

By virtue of people talking about Mac OS X in this very forum, they're part of the marketing process. Anything that turns Mac OS X into a talking point in a forum/in the real world, is free marketing.

I havn't tried Zimbra, but isn't Zimbra written in Java? The Java in Leopard is seriously broken, for one thing they didn't ship it with Java 6, and the Java 5 that comes with it, is much more buggy than on previous version of MacOS-X. Perhaps this is the reason for the Zimbra problem.

As a Java developer I'm seriously disappointed with Apple. They seam to have no feeling for continuity in their products and break or discontinue things at their whim. This is not the only example just remember how they discontinued A/UX and replaced it with AIX without any resonable upgrade path and then they dicontinued all unix offerings altogether again with no viable upgrade path for existing server customer (Mac OS-X came much later).

You only have to have visited one of the latest Java One conferences to know that MacOS-X have been a very popular platform for Java developers, now Apple rewards them like this. Yes, Leopard really blows all few remaining my expectatiions of Apple away and out of the window.

I think he means the Zimbra connector for OSX.

No, I mean Zimbra as in the server components. And they don't work under Leopard, Java or no Java.

So let me understand you right, you'll move from an operating system that has a vast array of software and hardware support to another operating system which has no software, hardly any hardware support - all simply to 'stick it to the man'.

Good luck on your 'rage against the machine'.

// to another operating system [linux] which has no software, hardly any hardware support//

Funny, my Ubuntu install on my four-year-old laptop worked perfectly OOTB, and there are, literally, thousands of apps I can run on it. Including thousands more Windows apps, thanks to Crossover Office.

Stupid me, I guess.

Thank you for proving my point; the only way you can run commercial applications is using an emulation tool - if you're going to use an emulator, you might as well use the real operating system.

I've got a tonne of awesome applications I run on Mac OS X, my printer is actually worked without needing to pay for a driver through third parties, there aren't strange compatibility issues; take Maple 11 and Matlab on Fedora 8, thanks to its use of libxcb 1.0 which lacks the ability to recognise the LIBXCB_ALLOW_SLOPPY_LOCK switch that would otherwise correct the problem. As an end user I don't want to have to go off and download the rawhide package simply to get compatibility - and possibly risk instability and security.

To simply make hyperbole because of problems which you NEVER actually mention - real tangible problems rather than simply 'Oh, I don't like that' speaks volumes to the lengths Apple haters have to go through to prop up their arguments.

Edited 2007-12-04 17:25

kaiwai, your zealotry is laughable. Let's take a look at what you're saying:

"Thank you for proving my point; the only way you can run commercial applications is using an emulation tool - if you're going to use an emulator, you might as well use the real operating system."

Are you able to run all commercial applications written for Windows or Linux without using an emulator of any sorts on OS X?

"I've got a tonne of awesome applications I run on Mac OS X, my printer is actually worked without needing to pay for a driver through third parties, there aren't strange compatibility issues;"

I can run thousands of applications on Ubuntu as well. My printer works perfectly and I didn't have to pay for a driver to get it working. Ubuntu recognized it just fine. I bet hard money that there are printers out there that don't work with OS X, just as there are with other OS's. Why buy a printer that's not compatible? That's such an ignorant argument that you're trying to make, and it's not even a halfway intelligent argument at that.

I'm glad you enjoy your overpriced hardware, and being locked in so tightly by one vendor. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy running Ubuntu, which I can do anything and everything that you can do on OS X, in addition to being able to upgrade my hardware whenever I feel like it without having to bend over and be forced to buy from only one vendor. Also, it's great to know that I don't have to pay for service packs like you Jobs worshipping fan boys do.

"So let me understand you right, you'll move from an operating system that has a vast array of software and hardware support to another operating system which has no software, hardly any hardware support - all simply to 'stick it to the man'. "

You couldn't have kept a straight face saying that. Ubuntu works on a hell of a lot on more hardware than OSX does. It's not even close. And don't even try to say that OSX has more available software. That's just flat out lying and you know it.

Apple is the biggest case of "vendor lock-in" out of any of the major platforms out there.

So I can get Adobe Creative Suite (THE WHOLE SUITE, not just Photoshop), iWorks, iLife, iTunes/Quicktime, Corel Painter, Microsoft Office etc. etc.

So no, it isn't a lie. A lie would be complaining about the lack of applications and all of the above are available on Linux.

Put down the Ubuntu kool aide, because it doesn't matter how of that stuff you drink, its not going to mask the lack of third party commercial applications, proper hardware support which fully supports all the features of the hardware.

No these applications don't run on Linux, but there are alternatives which rivals these applications in functionality. The applications are not important. It is the functionality of the applications that are important.

All of them have professional quality FLOSS alternatives. If you use Mac for DTP (quite common) then you have the option of using Scribus which rivals InDesign, PageMaker, and QuarkXPress, and is light years ahead of MS Publisher (the biggest joke in the DTP-world).

Add to that font rendering on Linux completely comparable to that of OS X (which is why FreeType infringes on Apple patents) and you have a worthy substitution.

Lay down your Linux-hates kaiwai. You're usually to smart for that kind of behaviour.

Are you saying that OSX has more applications than Linux? The Debian package repository contains over 18,200 applications: http://www.debian.org/releases/etch/i386/release-notes/ch-whats-new...

In addition, there are lots of Linux applications that are not included in the Debian repository, and Debian is only one distro in over 500 distros.

Also, why do you make a distinction in regard to third-party, commercial applications? What is so special about them? By the way, there are plenty of third-party, commercial applications that run nativly on Linux.

In regards to hardware, are you saying that OSX is compatible with more hardware than Linux?

Please clarify your arguments.

Edited 2007-12-05 02:37

Well, Linux has a wider array of software (the widest of all OS'es (unless you count in all the malware and frivolous third party shareware for windows)) and no system supports as much hardware as Linux*, so the wiser choice would naturally be Linux. Linux today is the better DTP-platform compared with Windows and lacks nothing compared with Mac. Image editing is a different issue though.

* Other mainstream OS'es tend to rely on drivers from manufacturers and as can be seen from Windows this often leads to poor drivers, unless you're smart enough to use reference-drivers from the chip-makers. Even then they tend to suck.