April 29th, 2005 is year 0 for the Apple world without all the messy Cambodia style purging. I would not be surprised if all pre-10.4 systems will cease to exist in the minds of a good many developers. It is understandable that someone who isn't a developer wouldn't immediately grasp how huge Tiger is. It reminds me very much back to when Quicktime was first released. Very few people grasped just how huge it was and ended up confusing Quicktime the player with Quicktime as the new platform for all time-based media data.
The amount of work Apple has put into Tiger for $120 is staggering; however, a lot of the fruits of all that labor are not going to be immediately visible the day Tiger arrives on people's systems. It's going to take time for the apps that leverage Tiger's new tech to come out over this year.
What an excellent, insightful post.
Tiger is truly the first iteration of the real next generation OS we'll all been waiting for. 10.0 through 10.3 will, in hindsight, be seen as advanced betas on the road to a far brighter OS future. Tiger finally starts to put all the puzzle pieces together. NOW the real fun begins.
Thurrot's opinion piece is really only relevant if you look at it from strictly a user POV, and ignore all the developer oriented benefits... which are huge, and many. Even then, his opinion is not really easy to justify. Spotlight alone is probably the biggest jump in how users will interact with their systems since 1984... it's too bad that he's too near-sighted to see that.
If we're gonna debate Paul T. let's start by understanding the fundamental issue with this so called journalist.
Stupidity.
It's not if he praises Mac or if he praises Windows. If the town fool runs screaming down the street praising the day you were born, you might be better of with him ranting about you....would you really want the town nut to be your biggest fanboy?
Comparing Tiger to DOS is stupidity. Once this insane reality exodus has taken a written and public form, any praise comming from the same foam striken keyboard can only be seen as the nutboy racing through the streets naked with a picture of you on his forehead...
The point of criticism is not if he does Tiger justice or if he does Windows justice, but if he does his fellow journalists justice.
Look at his record of predictions all the way back to how well the iMac would sell, iPod as well, or if anyone would ever use the mouse at all...
(if someone has a complete list of this comedian, posting it would help make my point)
Paul T's article is actually praising the Mac OS, and that's shamefull worrisome to all of us...
Is this really the kind of acknowledgement the Mac OS need I ask?
Do you have any data suggesting SP2 was a 5-man part-time team or anything even resembling that notion? Of course you don't. It's even been widely reported that they even backed off of Longhorn to finish SP2. It was a large staff, full-time project by any legitimate account.
5-man is mearly an example, if you took it seriously, you don't know the nature of computer oriented mass projects.
A lot of SP2 well a good chunk of it is taken from Server03, longhorn and other places.
Stopping longhorn? maybe, but most likely it was taking big chunks of longhorn and sticking it into SP2. So yes it was stopping longhorn if you don't consider they're the same people reassigned and reused.
5-man is mearly an example, if you took it seriously, you don't know the nature of computer oriented mass projects.
A lot of SP2 well a good chunk of it is taken from Server03, longhorn and other places.
Stopping longhorn? maybe, but most likely it was taking big chunks of longhorn and sticking it into SP2. So yes it was stopping longhorn if you don't consider they're the same people reassigned and reused.
I didn't take it seriously, because I knew even as an exaggerated example it wasn't accurate. There was no maybe about switching gears off of longhorn. They were intent on getting SP2 out.
If you want a laundry list of flashy features on the box of your new operating system updates, then switch to Windows. That's the entire point behind Windows updates, to hook as many buyers as possible by expanding the feature set as much as possible. Given limited resources, Microsoft chooses to add new features rather than optimizing the existing features; this approach leads to bloatware and we're all intimately familiar with it. At Microsoft, the software department answers to to the marketing types and the bean counters, and the product is a sea of new features that don't work well together and are unrefined.
Apple makes a different choice; instead of glomming on a buttload of new features for each OS X point release, Apple implements a handful of new features and commits the rest of their resources towards refining the old features. In Tiger, virtually ALL of Panther's features have been honed more finely, and Panther's foundation is even more robust.
For whatever the reason, Apple's approach is more honest. Apple says, "hey, you like video system in OS X? Check out Tiger, we made it even better!"
Already, people have been experiencing 800% increases in Java performance in Safari 2.3, which has some Tiger improvements rolled in. That's a taste of how much love and care went into refining OS X for the Tiger update. Apple doesn't just patch a slew of new features on to the existing (buggy) feature set, they focus on the entire OS.
Thank you for a very insightful post Junkyard Dawg. Please keep em comming.
Unlike Paul T. you cut to the (audio,video,image) core of things and present a clear image of reality. You portray the difference not only of windows vs. mac but of the very diffenrence in the thinking behind the two products.
[i]Already, people have been experiencing 800% increases in Java performance in Safari 2.3, which has some Tiger improvements rolled in. That's a taste of how much love and care went into refining OS X for the Tiger update. Apple doesn't just patch a slew of new features on to the existing (buggy) feature set, they focus on the entire OS. [/B]
Oh yay, they finally fixed something we?ve been bitching about since Safari?s coming out party. Most of those patches and upgrades come from the BSD open source community, not Apple.
Sorry you have it wrong. Apple made the fix on that feature, and apple has been the largest contributor to the layout engine it took from *nix since they started using it.
It is, however, a bug fix. They wouldn't be getting %800 if it weren't broken so bad in the first place. Now the performance is top notch, but only marginally better than most other competing solutions.
I think many people can agree that 10.3 -> 10.4 is not as big of an upgrade as XP -> Longhorn. What people were having a cow about is the expose comment, which is pure FUD spread out to ease windows users minds because they have no good comparison, and the service pack comment, which is objectively false. Tiger updates every aspect of the operating system, sometimes in vast ways. SP2 has a lot of under-the-hood changes, but they are transparent to the user, a pain for some developers, and the end result is one big bug fix (to nearly catch up with every other OS out there in only one aspect of OS's: security). Tiger, by the way, also has some significant security upgrades that go beyond the security enhancements in SP2. I remember reading about them, and could go look it up if anyone is interested.
SP2 could be compared to 10.0->10.1 which was a free upgrade (because 10.0 was broken, much in the same way SP1 was broken)
Just because Dashboard is a copy, that doesn't mean it doesn't add to the value of the upgrade. Remember, you have to pay something like $20 for this feature alone if you want to get it in konfabulator. And konfabulator slows down your system much more than Dashboard. Also, the execution isn't as clean in konfab, and included widgets aren't nearly as impressive. I like the option to have stuff stay on screen and at different levels like desktop/normal/float in konfab, even though i don't make use of that part. When i turn on konfab its for the itunes/ichat notification badges mostly, which is an extension architecture that apple should look into bringing into the OS soon (for optimization/stability's sake).
No one has explicitly mentioned Core Data, QE2D and the included XCode 2 with GCC4 and auto-vecorization, etc. Its just more Tiger features to add to the REBUTTAL. (New window GUI design? Voiceover? Parental Controls? Updated Font Handling? Updated Unicode? Built in Xgrid? Extended Bonjour capabilities? Common people, SP2? Get with the program. You don't have to be a fanboy to appreciate what's going on in La Tigre.
I don't think this has been mentioned yet, and if it has, sorry.
But, for $129 or $69 EDU, you get a new OS, with (according to Apple) 200+ new features. And there are quite a few that people don't mention. For example iCal 2. On the other hand, you can get the EDU version of M$ Office 2004 for $149, or the Upgrade for $249.
EDU: Tiger, $69
M$ Office, $149
Normal: Tiger, $129
M$ Office Upgrade, $239
M$ Office Standard, $399
Now, which would you rather spend your money on? Upgrading from 10.3 -> 10.4 for $129 ($69 EDU), or upgrading from M$ Office X -> M$ Office 2004 for $239 ($149 EDU)?
A brand new OS is $110 cheaper for the normal user, $80 for EDU. I know some people need M$ Office for work and such more than a new OS, but really, what is the better value for most people?
We need to stop complaining about the price, but instead compare it to other products.
It is only $50 more than iLife 05 or iWork 05. And while it is $30 more than the upgrade to XP Home, it is $70 cheaper than the upgrade to XP Pro. It is also $70 cheaper than XP Home Full and $170 cheaper than XP Pro Full.
OS X is an upgrade b/c you can't really build your own Mac, so you had to have some previouse OS. So, it is still a good deal compared to M$ OS Upgrades, especially for corporate users who have to buy XP Pro.
Another point is the OS X Family Pack. For $199, you get 5 licenses. TRo get 5 licenses for XP Home Upgrade, it would cost you $495. Whigh is a better deal? For XP Home Full or XP Pro Upgrade, it is $995. For XP Pro Full, it is $1495. Even if you just compare it to XP Home Upgrade, the OS X Family Pack is $296 cheaper. For that price, you could have bought the Family Pack for Panther AND Tiger, and still have $97 left, only $2 short of the iLife 05 Family Pack.
So, while we all would like Tiger to be cheaper, it really isn't as expensive as it looks when you compare it to other M$ and Apple products. Especially if you have 2+ computers you want to upgrade.
Well good for him. I have to say, that kind of upgrades him in my opinion. Much (most?) of the improvement in Tiger is under the hood, where most users won't see it or directly interact with it - but they'll reap the benefits many times over. If he wasn't aware of it, or hadn't thought it through sufficiently... well... nice to see him adapting to new information.
Edit: Nevermind. He added one line mentioning them, but nothing about how important they are. Still in the dark.
Yeah, the additions are pretty minor -- and he didn't bother to revise any of the misstatements (when Apple ever *promise* that every other OS release would be free??), or odd, poorly reasoned analogies and comparisons.
Not a lot of insight or depth of understanding here -- just one lazily written, occasionally on-the-mark opinion, sprinkled with bizarre, misleading statements.
Extremely thin gruel here. John Sircuasa's review (whether you agree with some his obsessions or no) will be the one to read.
"Way back in Windows 95, Microsoft introduced the first task-based UI metaphor in the ill-understood Start button. What this really is, is an obvious starting point ("CLICK HERE DUMMY"). In DOS, UNIX CLI, or in Mac OS X, you're staring at the screen when you first start, and there is no obvious "first thing to do." The system makes no effort at all to help you, leaving you to click on things until something happens (and why do some things in OS X require a single click [Dock items] while others require a double-click [alias on desktop]?). That's what I meant when I said OS X was a "classic" desktop OS. It has a GUI (heck, it has a very attractive GUI), but it literally does nothing to help you get started. It takes a very dated applications-based approach to handling tasks, too. You want to listen to music? Load iTunes first. You have to know which app to use before you can do anything. To an accomplished Mac user, this is second nature, and that's why so many people write me and wonder if I'm brain-damaged: After all, they already know how to use the system, so it must be intuitive. But it's not intuitive, and one thing people need to remember is that everything they do is hard until they learn how to do it: You get out of bed each day and walk to the bathroom without thinking about it. But it took you months to learn how to walk."
Ok, the 'Start' button is a good place to start. But the reason they need it is that if you do the wrong thing, it can get in ugly. In Windows, if you click on My Computer and start browing Program Files, it can get very confusing. There are 10+ files/folders in each program folder, and users won't know what to press. In OS X, if you double click Macintosh HD, you see an Applications Folder, than you apps, w/out 10 different files. Simple to me. And if you browse over the dock, it tells you what the name of something is. I love this line:
"You want to listen to music? Load iTunes first. You have to know which app to use before you can do anything.
If you see a CD with music notes on it it the dock, what do you think it is for?
If yuo see a photo in the dock w/ a camera, what is it for?
Some, like Safari might not be so easy, but all you have to do is click and see what happens. Not difficult.
Another great line:
"there's no reason to think you can even right-click on the Mac, actually"
What BS. This was after Panther was released, so we know the right-click was fully implemented. You can ctrl-click, or RIGHT CLICK with a 2 button mouse. Sheesh.
I also like how he doesn't understand why OS X doesn't have Print from the right-click menu. If you have a lot of pictures, and you have them organized, it can take a lot of photo browsing to find the right one. With iPhoto, they are all in the same place and sorted for you. Also, after you right-click, you get a 5-step wizzard.
OK, enough rambling. read the article yourself for a good laugh.
We have a winner. He is officially a dumbass. Obviously he was looking at things to find wrong with the system compared to windows... Not a neutral, unbiased review at all.
Comments
Originally posted by Tuttle
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/tiger/
April 29th, 2005 is year 0 for the Apple world without all the messy Cambodia style purging. I would not be surprised if all pre-10.4 systems will cease to exist in the minds of a good many developers. It is understandable that someone who isn't a developer wouldn't immediately grasp how huge Tiger is. It reminds me very much back to when Quicktime was first released. Very few people grasped just how huge it was and ended up confusing Quicktime the player with Quicktime as the new platform for all time-based media data.
The amount of work Apple has put into Tiger for $120 is staggering; however, a lot of the fruits of all that labor are not going to be immediately visible the day Tiger arrives on people's systems. It's going to take time for the apps that leverage Tiger's new tech to come out over this year.
What an excellent, insightful post.
Tiger is truly the first iteration of the real next generation OS we'll all been waiting for. 10.0 through 10.3 will, in hindsight, be seen as advanced betas on the road to a far brighter OS future. Tiger finally starts to put all the puzzle pieces together. NOW the real fun begins.
Tuttle, great post.
Thurrot's opinion piece is really only relevant if you look at it from strictly a user POV, and ignore all the developer oriented benefits... which are huge, and many. Even then, his opinion is not really easy to justify. Spotlight alone is probably the biggest jump in how users will interact with their systems since 1984... it's too bad that he's too near-sighted to see that.
Stupidity.
It's not if he praises Mac or if he praises Windows. If the town fool runs screaming down the street praising the day you were born, you might be better of with him ranting about you....would you really want the town nut to be your biggest fanboy?
Comparing Tiger to DOS is stupidity. Once this insane reality exodus has taken a written and public form, any praise comming from the same foam striken keyboard can only be seen as the nutboy racing through the streets naked with a picture of you on his forehead...
The point of criticism is not if he does Tiger justice or if he does Windows justice, but if he does his fellow journalists justice.
Look at his record of predictions all the way back to how well the iMac would sell, iPod as well, or if anyone would ever use the mouse at all...
(if someone has a complete list of this comedian, posting it would help make my point)
Paul T's article is actually praising the Mac OS, and that's shamefull worrisome to all of us...
Is this really the kind of acknowledgement the Mac OS need I ask?
Paul, I hope you never praise me....
With Mac affection
Zab The Fab
Do you have any data suggesting SP2 was a 5-man part-time team or anything even resembling that notion? Of course you don't. It's even been widely reported that they even backed off of Longhorn to finish SP2. It was a large staff, full-time project by any legitimate account.
5-man is mearly an example, if you took it seriously, you don't know the nature of computer oriented mass projects.
A lot of SP2 well a good chunk of it is taken from Server03, longhorn and other places.
Stopping longhorn? maybe, but most likely it was taking big chunks of longhorn and sticking it into SP2. So yes it was stopping longhorn if you don't consider they're the same people reassigned and reused.
Originally posted by Kuku
5-man is mearly an example, if you took it seriously, you don't know the nature of computer oriented mass projects.
A lot of SP2 well a good chunk of it is taken from Server03, longhorn and other places.
Stopping longhorn? maybe, but most likely it was taking big chunks of longhorn and sticking it into SP2. So yes it was stopping longhorn if you don't consider they're the same people reassigned and reused.
I didn't take it seriously, because I knew even as an exaggerated example it wasn't accurate. There was no maybe about switching gears off of longhorn. They were intent on getting SP2 out.
Apple makes a different choice; instead of glomming on a buttload of new features for each OS X point release, Apple implements a handful of new features and commits the rest of their resources towards refining the old features. In Tiger, virtually ALL of Panther's features have been honed more finely, and Panther's foundation is even more robust.
For whatever the reason, Apple's approach is more honest. Apple says, "hey, you like video system in OS X? Check out Tiger, we made it even better!"
Already, people have been experiencing 800% increases in Java performance in Safari 2.3, which has some Tiger improvements rolled in. That's a taste of how much love and care went into refining OS X for the Tiger update. Apple doesn't just patch a slew of new features on to the existing (buggy) feature set, they focus on the entire OS.
Unlike Paul T. you cut to the (audio,video,image) core of things and present a clear image of reality. You portray the difference not only of windows vs. mac but of the very diffenrence in the thinking behind the two products.
Sincerely
Zab The Fab
[i]Already, people have been experiencing 800% increases in Java performance in Safari 2.3, which has some Tiger improvements rolled in. That's a taste of how much love and care went into refining OS X for the Tiger update. Apple doesn't just patch a slew of new features on to the existing (buggy) feature set, they focus on the entire OS. [/B]
Oh yay, they finally fixed something we?ve been bitching about since Safari?s coming out party. Most of those patches and upgrades come from the BSD open source community, not Apple.
It is, however, a bug fix. They wouldn't be getting %800 if it weren't broken so bad in the first place. Now the performance is top notch, but only marginally better than most other competing solutions.
I think many people can agree that 10.3 -> 10.4 is not as big of an upgrade as XP -> Longhorn. What people were having a cow about is the expose comment, which is pure FUD spread out to ease windows users minds because they have no good comparison, and the service pack comment, which is objectively false. Tiger updates every aspect of the operating system, sometimes in vast ways. SP2 has a lot of under-the-hood changes, but they are transparent to the user, a pain for some developers, and the end result is one big bug fix (to nearly catch up with every other OS out there in only one aspect of OS's: security). Tiger, by the way, also has some significant security upgrades that go beyond the security enhancements in SP2. I remember reading about them, and could go look it up if anyone is interested.
SP2 could be compared to 10.0->10.1 which was a free upgrade (because 10.0 was broken, much in the same way SP1 was broken)
No one has explicitly mentioned Core Data, QE2D and the included XCode 2 with GCC4 and auto-vecorization, etc. Its just more Tiger features to add to the REBUTTAL. (New window GUI design? Voiceover? Parental Controls? Updated Font Handling? Updated Unicode? Built in Xgrid? Extended Bonjour capabilities? Common people, SP2? Get with the program. You don't have to be a fanboy to appreciate what's going on in La Tigre.
I'm tired.
Originally posted by Imergingenious
Just because Dashboard is a copy, that doesn't mean it doesn't add to the value of the upgrade.
Perhaps this is point where a reminder has to be made.
But, for $129 or $69 EDU, you get a new OS, with (according to Apple) 200+ new features. And there are quite a few that people don't mention. For example iCal 2. On the other hand, you can get the EDU version of M$ Office 2004 for $149, or the Upgrade for $249.
EDU: Tiger, $69
M$ Office, $149
Normal: Tiger, $129
M$ Office Upgrade, $239
M$ Office Standard, $399
Now, which would you rather spend your money on? Upgrading from 10.3 -> 10.4 for $129 ($69 EDU), or upgrading from M$ Office X -> M$ Office 2004 for $239 ($149 EDU)?
A brand new OS is $110 cheaper for the normal user, $80 for EDU. I know some people need M$ Office for work and such more than a new OS, but really, what is the better value for most people?
We need to stop complaining about the price, but instead compare it to other products.
It is only $50 more than iLife 05 or iWork 05. And while it is $30 more than the upgrade to XP Home, it is $70 cheaper than the upgrade to XP Pro. It is also $70 cheaper than XP Home Full and $170 cheaper than XP Pro Full.
OS X is an upgrade b/c you can't really build your own Mac, so you had to have some previouse OS. So, it is still a good deal compared to M$ OS Upgrades, especially for corporate users who have to buy XP Pro.
Another point is the OS X Family Pack. For $199, you get 5 licenses. TRo get 5 licenses for XP Home Upgrade, it would cost you $495. Whigh is a better deal? For XP Home Full or XP Pro Upgrade, it is $995. For XP Pro Full, it is $1495. Even if you just compare it to XP Home Upgrade, the OS X Family Pack is $296 cheaper. For that price, you could have bought the Family Pack for Panther AND Tiger, and still have $97 left, only $2 short of the iLife 05 Family Pack.
So, while we all would like Tiger to be cheaper, it really isn't as expensive as it looks when you compare it to other M$ and Apple products. Especially if you have 2+ computers you want to upgrade.
Edit: Nevermind. He added one line mentioning them, but nothing about how important they are. Still in the dark.
Not a lot of insight or depth of understanding here -- just one lazily written, occasionally on-the-mark opinion, sprinkled with bizarre, misleading statements.
Extremely thin gruel here. John Sircuasa's review (whether you agree with some his obsessions or no) will be the one to read.
From Paul (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...k-based_ui.asp)
"Way back in Windows 95, Microsoft introduced the first task-based UI metaphor in the ill-understood Start button. What this really is, is an obvious starting point ("CLICK HERE DUMMY"). In DOS, UNIX CLI, or in Mac OS X, you're staring at the screen when you first start, and there is no obvious "first thing to do." The system makes no effort at all to help you, leaving you to click on things until something happens (and why do some things in OS X require a single click [Dock items] while others require a double-click [alias on desktop]?). That's what I meant when I said OS X was a "classic" desktop OS. It has a GUI (heck, it has a very attractive GUI), but it literally does nothing to help you get started. It takes a very dated applications-based approach to handling tasks, too. You want to listen to music? Load iTunes first. You have to know which app to use before you can do anything. To an accomplished Mac user, this is second nature, and that's why so many people write me and wonder if I'm brain-damaged: After all, they already know how to use the system, so it must be intuitive. But it's not intuitive, and one thing people need to remember is that everything they do is hard until they learn how to do it: You get out of bed each day and walk to the bathroom without thinking about it. But it took you months to learn how to walk."
Ok, the 'Start' button is a good place to start. But the reason they need it is that if you do the wrong thing, it can get in ugly. In Windows, if you click on My Computer and start browing Program Files, it can get very confusing. There are 10+ files/folders in each program folder, and users won't know what to press. In OS X, if you double click Macintosh HD, you see an Applications Folder, than you apps, w/out 10 different files. Simple to me. And if you browse over the dock, it tells you what the name of something is. I love this line:
"You want to listen to music? Load iTunes first. You have to know which app to use before you can do anything.
If you see a CD with music notes on it it the dock, what do you think it is for?
If yuo see a photo in the dock w/ a camera, what is it for?
Some, like Safari might not be so easy, but all you have to do is click and see what happens. Not difficult.
Another great line:
"there's no reason to think you can even right-click on the Mac, actually"
What BS. This was after Panther was released, so we know the right-click was fully implemented. You can ctrl-click, or RIGHT CLICK with a 2 button mouse. Sheesh.
I also like how he doesn't understand why OS X doesn't have Print from the right-click menu. If you have a lot of pictures, and you have them organized, it can take a lot of photo browsing to find the right one. With iPhoto, they are all in the same place and sorted for you. Also, after you right-click, you get a 5-step wizzard.
OK, enough rambling. read the article yourself for a good laugh.
Oops. I shouldn't have fixed that for him. Duplicitous idiot.
We have a winner. He is officially a dumbass. Obviously he was looking at things to find wrong with the system compared to windows... Not a neutral, unbiased review at all.
I bet you whiners spend more than 129 a year on overpriced coffee.
I dont mind, I plan on buying tiger next month. even though I just got my mini a few months ago.