Leopard = Vista?

[treizep]

Vista was, as described by one of the forummembers a complete rewrite of the Windows OS, they just released it too soon and therefore couldnt implement the promised functionalities that had to compete with OSX (winfs and others) Only the core of the system was rewritten and some stolen eyecandy was added. They didnt finish what they started = "damn we want to have an os as good and beautiful as Apple".

 

Apple on the other hand updated OSX in increments and Leopard isnt a rewrite of the OS, its just a needed bigger update with more functionalities and beatiful creative eyecandy. The core has remained the same.

 

So i dont think apple is making the same mistake as MS (if you didnt catch that in my little scrap above)

 

cheers!

 

maxi

 

I have not read the complete thread and don't wan't to... but saying that Vista is a complete rewrite of the Windows OS is false !

 

Vista is based on the kernel of Windows Server 2003 which is only an evolution of the classic NT kernel...

[FireSlash]

What it really comes down to is that Leopard isn't different enough from previous versions of OSX to be fairly compared to Vista. If vista was/wasn't a mistake is a debate better left in it's own thread.

 

We won't know for sure how good/bad leopard is till release, but I'm banking on good

[Maximuss]

What it really comes down to is that Leopard isn't different enough from previous versions of OSX to be fairly compared to Vista. If vista was/wasn't a mistake is a debate better left in it's own thread.

 

We won't know for sure how good/bad leopard is till release, but I'm banking on good

 

Exactly

 

maxi out

[Dan Druff]

Before talking about OS only by it's GUI or add-on functionalities, you should consider that OS mean Operating System and not End User Interface. In a show, many things can change behind the scene that are unknown to the public, this is no different, the show (GUI) could be the same, but with a far superior back-stage organization (OS). If GUI was the only thing to consider, UNIX wouldn't had to get updates from 1965 to 1979 or DOS from 1.0 to 3.3 because these OS are only a single flashing dot on a blank screen!

 

OS changes are only obvious to the dev. and the like. For marketing purpose, GUI

MUST be updated, but this is not mandatory.

 

Reading the Mr.manatane post is a good resumé of behind the scene changes.

 

No extensive changes to the kernel ?!

Rewritting the scheduler is not an extensive change?

Modifying the whole operating system (and heavily the kernel) for the dtrace integration is not an extensive change ?

Import the MAC framework in the kernel from trusted BSD is not an extensive change ?

 

Out of the kernel

 

Changing the way all unix daemons are launched is not an extensive change ?

Make the system to fit he UNIX certification is not an extensive change ?

Do you really know what you are talking about ?

 

It's not because there is no significant changes in the GUI from Tiger to Leopard that there is no 'extensive' changes in the background ...

[vassillios]

Alright, hear me out here....

 

We have two operating systems, Mac OS 10.4 (Tiger), and Windows XP. Both of these OSs were standards for their respective platforms. Both OSs had delayed successors. Vista was delayed by problems creating it. Leo was delayed by the iPhone, and Tiger was kept around longer because of the Intel transition.

 

One one hand, we have a new OS for Windows. It has much needed updates in security. It packs a lot of new features (some of them needed, many of them rip offs, but they're there). It wasn't perfect. It was rushed by MS because they felt it needed to be out as soon as it could. It even went through one the biggest public betas I've seen.

 

On the other hand, we have a new OS for Mac. It has new features that really up the ante for MS and Linux. It has a lot of new features (some of them amazing like quick look, some of them rip offs like Spaces). It's far from perfect. It has a self-imposed deadline.

 

Neither of them were/are ready for their initial release.

 

Opinions?

 

 

I don't know how you can say it's not ready for release when you haven't even seen the release version. 9a559 may not be ready for release (although I have not really encountered any issues where I can comfortably say that), but I doubt 9a559 will be the release version.

[Envying]

I'm not necessarily talking about bugs though...I'm getting at that they're both creating something new when they don't need to, and third party reliability is going to crash because of it.

 

It's really hard to define what is needed or not. I guess what they have done is based on their definition of user's needs. Software engineering has its definition of that.

[Twisty]

What it really comes down to is that Leopard isn't different enough from previous versions of OSX to be fairly compared to Vista. If vista was/wasn't a mistake is a debate better left in it's own thread.

 

We won't know for sure how good/bad leopard is till release, but I'm banking on good

 

 

Spot on!

[Purple Puppy]

It's far from perfect. It has a self-imposed deadline.

 

Neither of them were/are ready for their initial release.

 

Opinions?

 

There was a time when everyone on this forum were running alphas of Mac OS X Leopard, and...

 

it was basically a very buggy, unstable version of Tiger with some under-the-hood changes.

 

We all were disappointed in it.

 

Suddenly, Apple releases a Beta, and, hey presto! To our surprise, Apple had changed so many things in Leopard, including a new exterior look, new dock, etc, and nobody even anticipated it!

 

I'm sure that when Apple releases RC's, or the RTM itself, it would be as drastic a difference as from the alpha to beta. In reality, we have no idea whether Leopard is close to readiness or not w

en Apple may simply be keeping a lot of secrets from us. 

[graphxks]

Alright, hear me out here....

 

We have two operating systems, Mac OS 10.4 (Tiger), and Windows XP. Both of these OSs were standards for their respective platforms. Both OSs had delayed successors. Vista was delayed by problems creating it. Leo was delayed by the iPhone, and Tiger was kept around longer because of the Intel transition.

 

One one hand, we have a new OS for Windows. It has much needed updates in security. It packs a lot of new features (some of them needed, many of them rip offs, but they're there). It wasn't perfect. It was rushed by MS because they felt it needed to be out as soon as it could. It even went through one the biggest public betas I've seen.

 

On the other hand, we have a new OS for Mac. It has new features that really up the ante for MS and Linux. It has a lot of new features (some of them amazing like quick look, some of them rip offs like Spaces). It's far from perfect. It has a self-imposed deadline.

 

Neither of them were/are ready for their initial release.

 

Opinions?

 

Alright, one force here is the force of marketing. If you don't upgrade an OS you are called slow in the market, look at the flack that MS has gotten for the length of time between XP and Vista. Evolve or die. And that's a good thing or we'd all still be running DOS.

 

Another force is that computer hardware is constantly evolving, which allows your software to do really cool new things. Imagine cover flow on a 386?

 

As a software developer of web applications, I can tell you that development is NEVER done, and software is NEVER perfect, especially on a first release. But eventually you HAVE to release something cause you are paying a bunch of developers a bunch of money and have to recoup your costs somewhere.

 

So, you set a deadline and you put out the best product you can at the time, and update it as things crop up.

 

And personally, I am not having a single problem with the current build other than some third party apps that I wouldn't necessarily expect to work. And third party drivers and such are usually the responsibility of the third party vendor.

 

So I think it's a good product at a good time, especially in the 4th quarter with no other new products probably released this quarter. New products generate revenue and buzz and companies need both.

 

MS, however, still sucks

[Numberzz]

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard ≠ Microsoft Windows Vista

[djet]

I think Apple has done right (just about) with Leopard, as WIndows has done with Vista. Vista seemed pre-mature, overly-hiped, and overly added to.

 

Leopard seems to be at the right time, not really in the midst of other introductions. Also, when I say overly-hiped i mean that so far I havn't seen a single Leopard ad except on the Apple webiste, not like the Vista ads that were everywhere that advertised stuff that really were beyond an OS's abilities. THirdly, some of the stuff in Vista seemed like it was just added to to make it look good, not to improve functionality and I think the same thing can be said of OS X. I mean do we REALLY need a refelcting dock? Also I think one advantage Apple has in general over Windows is that when APple releases an update it's maybe once-a-month at the most frequent(for updates to operating systems, not iTunes or stuff like that.) and the updates have a clear purpose to them, not just Windows NT Security Update 5.36784531. Anyways.....

[darcagn]

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard ≠ Microsoft Windows Vista

 

Exactly.

 

 

Leopard is nothing like Vista, so don't try to create comparisons between Leopard and Vista.

 

I've been using Leopard for two weeks and couldn't be happier. When I first "upgraded" from XP to Vista, I felt lost, like things had been reorganized and moved around pointlessly with no benefits. On the other hand, with Leopard, I still feel at home but I notice improvements and new features everywhere.

 

Leopard quite clearly feels like the future of OS X--much improved, but still my home, whereas Vista felt so foreign.

[djet]

Exactly.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Renaming everything in Vista was the dumbest {censored} I've ever seen in software development.

 

What if I wanted to uninstall MSN messenger (don't ask why I have it installed in the first place...)

 

If I was a total noob, would Programs and Features be the first place I'd look?

 

Hell no. I'd look for something that screams "HEY NOOB, CLICK ME", like Add or Remove Programs does.

[rathalos]

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard >> Microsoft Windows Vista

[U.C.]

Totally agree with you CLiDE. In Vista, the one day I used it on my old Celeron it was very slow, so was OSX, meh..... But what turned me off was that everything was different. All names, locations everything. That too pointlessly.

 

Leopard seems like an evolution(from the screenshots, I have not used it). OSX 10.0.0 was a rewrite, Leopard seems to me like the next step. Most bugs that people face will probably be fixed when Leopard is launched, of that I am sure.

 

Vista I believe should have been a rewrite. It may have taken much more time, but would have been much better. I think MS should too embrace the UNIX Kernel. If you cant beat em, join em.

[crash-x]

Vista:

 

Cant say much about it, since I didnt use it and didnt read about it

 

 

Leopard:

I installed it a few days ago and... Im blown away! NOT because of it revolutionary features... in fact after I played around with the most advertised features I thought: "Yeah it's nice, but NOT that cool, new, revolutionary.... as I expected it to be.

 

But Im blown away anyways.. the question to ask is: WHY are you blown away then?

 

BECAUSE leopard is so EVOLUTIONARY. It took all the concepts and things developed in the earlier versions of Mac OS X and perfected them!

 

Examples:

I loved expose in Tiger, but it wasnt still perfect.. too many windows and they all look the same when exposed... and it took me really a while to find the window I wanted.

Now Spaces solves this problem in such a beautiful way.... With Tiger I was still stuck with the windows-way-of-doing stuff, like taskbar and clicking on the dock to select apps. I used it very often and used expose not as much. Now with spaces its PERFECT. I use only expose and spaces to select windows. I dont search around, if I need a specific window I FIND it instead of search

The tiger way was OK, but leopard makes it perfect!

Its true that its not something new and that the idea is not new. I used to use virtual desktops with linux and FBSD too and it was ok, but only the combination of expose and virtual desktops makes this idea really practical and perfect. Apple took a good idea and perfected it and made it really useful and useable!

 

Spotlight:

It was a cool idea in tiger, but it lacked function. You couldnt do exact match searches for example and it was kinda slow. The improvements in Leopard make it perfect. Now its finally REALLY useable. Smart folders are cool and now with leopard I actually use spotlight!

 

 

Time Machine:

I had sooo often problems because I didnt BackUp stuff... and I still did never do regular backups. Time Machine solves this problem in a really cool and practical way. It really gets people to back up their stuff, because its so painless and easy. Thats what it is for.

 

The other features are awesome too. I use QuickLook a lot and coverflow in the finder is cool and often useful too.

 

Stacks is the only feature I'm not really blown away with.

 

 

I cant imagine anymore to go back to tiger and thats why I installed it on the internal HDD of my MacBook. The beta already runs really good and I didnt have any problems so far.

 

My guess is that almost everyone will update to leopard and be satisfied. Leopard is no mistake at all.

 

crash-x

[scj312]

Totally agree with you CLiDE. In Vista, the one day I used it on my old Celeron it was very slow, so was OSX, meh..... But what turned me off was that everything was different. All names, locations everything. That too pointlessly.

 

Leopard seems like an evolution(from the screenshots, I have not used it). OSX 10.0.0 was a rewrite, Leopard seems to me like the next step. Most bugs that people face will probably be fixed when Leopard is launched, of that I am sure.

 

Vista I believe should have been a rewrite. It may have taken much more time, but would have been much better. I think MS should too embrace the UNIX Kernel. If you cant beat em, join em.

MS is creating a new OS after "seven" that will be a rewrite. It's called Singularity.

[U.C.]

Singularity looks like its still in very early stages. Maybe it will better than Windows. Never knew about this up until now.

[patpatpoon]

from this thread creator's logic, it's something like.... "if a pig's fat, and you're fat, then you're a pig."

 

you cant juz use this logic on comparing the 2 systems, they have 2 market segments.

and obviously, leopard does heaps more better than vista, i run both systems in my 'little white' macbook (as what we call it in Chinese).

 

apple does an upgrade to an operating system every 2 yrs, MS does every 5-6yrs. one thing is clear: when 10.5 is out, 10.6 is half the way already. when vista is out, not even a comma for the next MS OS.

 

a delay for half a year is juz to play safe, doesnt matter for this little time, as long as the system's lovely, it's fine. we'll wait.

[foofoorabbit]

Singularity looks like its still in very early stages. Maybe it will better than Windows. Never knew about this up until now.

 

MS will have a heck of a time with developers if Singularity is so different that existing Windows app don't work under it. They'll be in Apple's shoes when Mac OS X came out, only worse.

[luminousnerd]

I didn't read all of the replies, so someone might have mentioned this already...

 

Still, I have to point out that XP can't really be compared to 10.4. XP was released in October 2001, and OS X 10.1 just before it. Since then, we have had Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger...

 

Vista was announced way back in early 2005, but had been under development for possibly 4 years prior to that. Leopard was announced in the middle of 2005, and was only just beginning development.

[RandomNinjaAtk]

I really don't think Apple is making the same mistakes as Microshaft. This release did take longer, only been a mac user for one year so I didn't really feel it. But the OS is building on OS X and its getting better. Some parts feel revolutionary but like stated by others its more Evolutionary.

 

I used a developer build for a week or 2, 9a559. The OS was very stable, they could have released that and I would have been happy to wait for the last few bugs to be ironed out in an update (although better if not needed ). I can't wait to see the final version, I'm sure was a few builds ahead of the developer build.

 

What really makes me wonder is what we'll see in OS XI. I'm guessing it would be an entire OS rewrite from the ground up??? Thats usually how most product cycles, when they hit the next major version.

 

What most excites me about leopard though is the UNIX certification. Very few companies have that title. This ensures better framework/core to build on for new applications and features. Better for the end users like us and the developers making them.

 

I got my pre order, now the wait seems forever, just watching that damn clock on Apple's site.....

[zeamp]

OS X Leopard is not Windows Vista and Windows Vista is not OS X Leopard. This is like comparing grapefruit to bowling balls. Yes, it's round and can do a lot of the same things but when you get to the core of how each are built, they're very different.

 

The main reason why I moved to Mac OS X is because I'm a designer and Adobe products, most notably Photoshop, is how I support my family. Photoshop was originally created for the Macintosh and continues to be developed to run on it some 20 years later. It just made sense to make the switch. Other things I like about OS X is the fact that almost all computer virii is written for Windows. This will slowly change as more people move to Mac but for right now I stay pretty much "trouble free" with my Hackintosh.

 

All products move forward, get face-lifts, new features that turn out to be not-so-useful, etc. It's just part of product development. Stopping at one product release that "just works" would mean no new profit. I must admit OS X Tiger was a great release and I'm holding off on Leopard for a few more months to see how it progresses. That's not saying a lot since both myself and my wife still run Windows XP (SP2 was released 3 years ago!) and Vista has been out for a long time. XP just runs better on our hardware right now. I'm sure in the future we'll upgrade to Vista but right now we're good. Same with Tiger and Leopard.

 

Over the years I've seen a lot of my friends scoop up a Mac because of how smooth they've seen my OS X run (on Mac and non-Mac hardware) and in the same right I've seen people move to Windows to get more commercial video game support and to be able to use the latest version of Internet Explorer and other Microsoft products dragging behind the .exe-to-.dmg.

 

All in all, both Leopard and Vista do almost everything the other can do. Most consumers out there aren't going into a store and saying "Leopard looks like Vista, I'll take that Mini!" And they aren't saying "I guess I need Windows for my Zune MP3 Player." There's really a fine line between evolution and revolution and until something comes out to take both titles at once, I'm going to continue to run Windows and OS X at my home and my office.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

I like Vista. From my experience, I've had no issues. Overall, it's has been a good user experience.

 

However, Leopard, albeit the occasional crash/app lockup, is a better user experience, and that's why it's my main OS.

 

If I had to choose, obviously I'd pick Leopard, but I wouldn't be disappointed if I had to use Vista.

 

But Mac zealots are {censored}, and Windows fanboys are airheads (and visa versa), so obviously they feel a need to create a non-existing OS war.