Not to say anything in favor of Vista or any other MS product, BUTMY copy of Leopard is still sitting on the shelf, uninstalled. Among other apps, SuperDuper! isn't Leo-compatible, and some of my other apps would require expensive upgrades to run under Leo. Since I'm retired and don't "need" most of my apps for very much, I just may stay with Tiger for a long time. I don't think that the Tiger > Leopard move was done well at all -- perhaps just as poorly as the XP > Vista move.
Having tested Leopard prior to release i upgraded to leopard on the 26th of October.
On my work iMac I run:
Mail
iCal
Office 2004
Skype
iChat
Toast
Adobe CS3 (Mostly for Photoshop and Dreamweaver for website design)
parallels Desktop (Runs Windows XP Pro)
My system runs 24/7 and has only been restarted a couple of times since upgrading to leopard. I would not go back to Tiger, as I use my Mac for work everyday the increased performance is
very noticeable and I make full use of stacks and Spaces.
I think that the leopard upgrade went very well if applications don't fully support leopard you can't blame apple as they provided developers with all the tools and development libraries that they would have required to make their applications work.
i have a copy of vista i was advised not to install by the software company that makes the cad program(rhino) that i need to run on a wintel box next to my mac. its not hard to sell an operating system that comes with a computer. how many people queued up to buy the upgrade ? bill, Melinda and Steve and then maybe George Bush… lets see my vista calculator adds that up as 5 people in a row!!
This is bad for Microsoft somehow, that an OS they already made/marketed is selling better than their new one? If they were losing out to a rival I could see this as bad, but they are losing to themselves.
Vista's sales... disappointing? Steve Jobs would eat his own babies to have sales numbers like Microsoft.
Steve doesn't have to have a special lunch on his offspring to get Microsoft-esque numbers -- Apple would just have to abandon their OS and dive into the PC party.
Steve doesn't have to have a special lunch on his offspring to get Microsoft-esque numbers -- Apple would just have to abandon their OS and dive into the PC party.
I don't think that makes any sense. There's not much profit to be had in the Windows computer market. Apple nets almost as much as HP or Dell does.
I don't think a whole lot of Apple buyers are buying Apple just because of the hardware design.
I don't think that makes any sense. There's not much profit to be had in the Windows computer market. Apple nets almost as much as HP or Dell does.
I don't think a whole lot of Apple buyers are buying Apple just because of the hardware design.
The only real compelling feature to Vista is DX10 and that's only from a gaming perspective. I've yet to hear of any other real advancements or "must have" features and that's unfortunate. People where I work received new laptops during a refresh and clamored to get XP installed as Vista was causing too many problems in the course of their work. A number of them even switched to Linux as a result.
I'm the lone rebel here with my 1st gen black Macbook (I chose the black to blend in better).
Companies who buy volume licenses are included in the stat and that is bogus: sure, any company with a VL and Software Assurance automaticly got a 1-for-1 upgrade right from XP but no one is using it, outside of a few developers who have to test their companies commercial apps in it
DX10 is not supported by most of the games out there. Few new titles like Crysis support DX10, but if you look at the comparative screenshots, I say bleh. Again, look at the hardware requirements for running Crysis under Vista as opposed to XP.
In the meanwhile, DX10.1 coming up soon and requires hardware and software support...
Just like vista: it's a memory hog and they redesigned something that worked into something ugly that doesn't work (i.e. the "Ribbon").
I mean that darned Ribbon is HUGE..and the first thing you're told when you search for help on customizing it is "Things you can't customize on the toolbar".
Gotta love that...
Oh, and don't even get me started on the new file formats! I mean, the last time we had that was 7 years ago wasn't it? Didn't they learn anything from that? ARGH....why, why, why....
Uh, okay. That must be why PC World wrote that the Macbook Pro managed to be the fastest laptop they tested Vista on late last year. "Weak hardware." It's amazing that there are still people out there still spouting the "Macs cost more" myth. It's been debunked so many times by so many sources, but I guess some people will hold on dearly to their beliefs.
I don't care about PC World - they tested a $2400 laptop, against a bunch of Windows laptops, and beat the 2nd fastest one (a Gateway), by a single benchmark point, and the Gateway was still $2100. But so what, their both use similar HW, and I don't think most people spend that much on laptops, or will notice one point in speed difference in some benchmark that most people have never heard of.
The MBP is pretty fair value, on the higher end for a laptop that has an 8600, but it is small and light, so I can see the added cost in that. They run a bit hot from my experience, but most laptops aren't the coolest to begin with.
But I have a Mac Mini with Leopard - I like it a lot, but the OS more than the machine.
The OS is great, but the HW is lame, and overpriced. For $600 it really should have a DVD burner, and a bigger HD (only 80 GB). Whereas the Macbook, even the $1100 model, should have a DVD burner. It's little things that Apple skimps on. And for the money, the MB should probably have an Nvidia 8400, or some other form of discrete GPU.
The "added value" of iLife '08 I have a hard time seeing, as they are OK apps, but bloated. I don't like iPhoto, I don't the fact that it has it's own bloated DB structure, iTunes is bloated beyond need (better than the Windows version, but still needs some trimming), I don't use iMovie or iDVD, but I like iWeb quite a bit, and Garageband is pretty good too.
The Mini is the worst offender out of Apple's lot though - good OS, poor HW. If I didn't want to use OSX (legitimately), and if it wasn't the only headless Mac under $2500, I wouldn't have gotten the Mini, and I already have a laptop that I bought in the summer.
The Mini is the worst offender out of Apple's lot though - good OS, poor HW. If I didn't want to use OSX (legitimately), and if it wasn't the only headless Mac under $2500, I wouldn't have gotten the Mini, and I already have a laptop that I bought in the summer.
I think apple just stopped caring about the mini after the release. The original release was a good idea, but then all the updates seemed like last minute ideas.
I believe that about a day before a new release, some intern would inform steve jobs that the mini actually existed. Then steve jobs would then order a new mini with higher specs to be designed within the next 5 hours using parts from the laptops.
I know this would be near impossible to track, but what about users who bought PC's loaded with Vista (which bolstered Microsoft's sales numbers) but have since downgraded to XP Pro. I'm a computer consultant and in my small corner of the country, I've downgraded quite a few PC's whose owners were suckered into buying their PC's preloaded with Vista only to find out their new, speedy computer is a dog with Vista loaded.
Comments
Not to say anything in favor of Vista or any other MS product, BUT MY copy of Leopard is still sitting on the shelf, uninstalled. Among other apps, SuperDuper! isn't Leo-compatible, and some of my other apps would require expensive upgrades to run under Leo. Since I'm retired and don't "need" most of my apps for very much, I just may stay with Tiger for a long time. I don't think that the Tiger > Leopard move was done well at all -- perhaps just as poorly as the XP > Vista move.
Having tested Leopard prior to release i upgraded to leopard on the 26th of October.
On my work iMac I run:
Mail
iCal
Office 2004
Skype
iChat
Toast
Adobe CS3 (Mostly for Photoshop and Dreamweaver for website design)
parallels Desktop (Runs Windows XP Pro)
My system runs 24/7 and has only been restarted a couple of times since upgrading to leopard. I would not go back to Tiger, as I use my Mac for work everyday the increased performance is
very noticeable and I make full use of stacks and Spaces.
I think that the leopard upgrade went very well if applications don't fully support leopard you can't blame apple as they provided developers with all the tools and development libraries that they would have required to make their applications work.
Vista's sales... disappointing? Steve Jobs would eat his own babies to have sales numbers like Microsoft.
Steve doesn't have to have a special lunch on his offspring to get Microsoft-esque numbers -- Apple would just have to abandon their OS and dive into the PC party.
Steve doesn't have to have a special lunch on his offspring to get Microsoft-esque numbers -- Apple would just have to abandon their OS and dive into the PC party.
I don't think that makes any sense. There's not much profit to be had in the Windows computer market. Apple nets almost as much as HP or Dell does.
I don't think a whole lot of Apple buyers are buying Apple just because of the hardware design.
I don't think a whole lot of Apple buyers are buying Apple just because of the hardware design.
Perhaps not "just" because. I would say that a great deal of Apple buyers buy Macs "largely" because of the aesthetic appeal.
I don't think that makes any sense. There's not much profit to be had in the Windows computer market. Apple nets almost as much as HP or Dell does.
I don't think a whole lot of Apple buyers are buying Apple just because of the hardware design.
The only real compelling feature to Vista is DX10 and that's only from a gaming perspective. I've yet to hear of any other real advancements or "must have" features and that's unfortunate. People where I work received new laptops during a refresh and clamored to get XP installed as Vista was causing too many problems in the course of their work. A number of them even switched to Linux as a result.
I'm the lone rebel here with my 1st gen black Macbook (I chose the black to blend in better).
Perhaps not "just" because. I would say that a great deal of Apple buyers buy Macs "largely" because of the aesthetic appeal.
It isnt asthetic, it is the fact that
A vista sucks
B XP is about 8 years old
C people dont want to have to deal with the shit on windows by default from OEMs and largely dont have the know how to rid themselves of it
and
D the Mac is the only other option
Yes it kicks windows' ass, but mac is the only other player for non-geeks, so it is a natural migration from the worse to the better.
In the meanwhile, DX10.1 coming up soon and requires hardware and software support...
But MS did right with Office 2007.
Er, really? Ya think so? Not me..
Just like vista: it's a memory hog and they redesigned something that worked into something ugly that doesn't work (i.e. the "Ribbon").
I mean that darned Ribbon is HUGE..and the first thing you're told when you search for help on customizing it is "Things you can't customize on the toolbar".
Gotta love that...
Oh, and don't even get me started on the new file formats! I mean, the last time we had that was 7 years ago wasn't it? Didn't they learn anything from that? ARGH....why, why, why....
Uh, okay. That must be why PC World wrote that the Macbook Pro managed to be the fastest laptop they tested Vista on late last year. "Weak hardware." It's amazing that there are still people out there still spouting the "Macs cost more" myth. It's been debunked so many times by so many sources, but I guess some people will hold on dearly to their beliefs.
I don't care about PC World - they tested a $2400 laptop, against a bunch of Windows laptops, and beat the 2nd fastest one (a Gateway), by a single benchmark point, and the Gateway was still $2100. But so what, their both use similar HW, and I don't think most people spend that much on laptops, or will notice one point in speed difference in some benchmark that most people have never heard of.
The MBP is pretty fair value, on the higher end for a laptop that has an 8600, but it is small and light, so I can see the added cost in that. They run a bit hot from my experience, but most laptops aren't the coolest to begin with.
But I have a Mac Mini with Leopard - I like it a lot, but the OS more than the machine.
The OS is great, but the HW is lame, and overpriced. For $600 it really should have a DVD burner, and a bigger HD (only 80 GB). Whereas the Macbook, even the $1100 model, should have a DVD burner. It's little things that Apple skimps on. And for the money, the MB should probably have an Nvidia 8400, or some other form of discrete GPU.
The "added value" of iLife '08 I have a hard time seeing, as they are OK apps, but bloated. I don't like iPhoto, I don't the fact that it has it's own bloated DB structure, iTunes is bloated beyond need (better than the Windows version, but still needs some trimming), I don't use iMovie or iDVD, but I like iWeb quite a bit, and Garageband is pretty good too.
The Mini is the worst offender out of Apple's lot though - good OS, poor HW. If I didn't want to use OSX (legitimately), and if it wasn't the only headless Mac under $2500, I wouldn't have gotten the Mini, and I already have a laptop that I bought in the summer.
The Mini is the worst offender out of Apple's lot though - good OS, poor HW. If I didn't want to use OSX (legitimately), and if it wasn't the only headless Mac under $2500, I wouldn't have gotten the Mini, and I already have a laptop that I bought in the summer.
I think apple just stopped caring about the mini after the release. The original release was a good idea, but then all the updates seemed like last minute ideas.
I believe that about a day before a new release, some intern would inform steve jobs that the mini actually existed. Then steve jobs would then order a new mini with higher specs to be designed within the next 5 hours using parts from the laptops.
I did enjoy some of the mods though.
I agree. There are a lot of good ideas in Plan9 they could bring across. I'm sure there are other minor OSes they could pinch ideas from too.
I would love to see Inferno merged with Objective-C. That Dennis Ritchie guy knows a thing or two. Heck, maybe Apple can poach him?